Feed aggregator

Hillary Clinton delivered a blistering attack on President Donald Trump Monday night, accusing him of becoming increasingly consumed with his own image and personal ambitions while losing sight of his responsibilities to the American public.

Appearing on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” the former secretary of state and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee argued that Trump has changed considerably since their election contest a decade ago. She claimed that the president is now operating without the restraints that once existed within his political circle.

During the interview, host Anderson Cooper asked Clinton to compare the Trump she faced in the 2016 presidential debates with the president today, pointing specifically to his recent appearance near Washington’s Reflecting Pool and his proposals for architectural changes in the nation’s capital.

“How do you think he is as a candidate, when you see the guy you debated then and you see the person now, and with the press conference he gave today outside the reflecting pool and the plans and the decorations and the crafting projects, how how different is he?” Cooper asked.

Clinton responded by arguing that Trump had once possessed a more deliberate political strategy and had advisers capable of challenging his decisions, a dynamic she believes has largely disappeared.

“Look, I think that he’s lost the plot. You know, back in 2016, ten years ago, think about that, he had a theory of the case. He knew how he wanted to present himself. He had people around him who at least had some ability to rein him in or to say no to him. He’s totally unfettered and unhinged now. And for him to go to the reflecting pool, one of the great failures of his efforts to redo Washington and stand there as though it was a huge success, and go on and on about all of his, you know, projects ripping up Washington, destroying the East Wing, building an arch that will interfere with air traffic control, navigation in and out of Washington. I mean, you can’t make this up. He is so focused on himself.”

Her remarks followed Trump’s appearance earlier Monday at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, where he highlighted renovations to the historic Washington landmark. The president devoted much of his nearly hour-long address to improvements involving the pool’s drainage system, surface, and appearance, while also discussing other construction projects his administration has undertaken throughout the capital.

The Reflecting Pool renovation has attracted controversy after encountering delays, algae problems, and peeling surface coatings. The project ultimately cost more than $16 million, according to Reuters, considerably exceeding the administration’s original estimate. Trump defended the work and praised the improvements during Monday’s event.

Trump has also promoted plans for a new White House ballroom, an imposing triumphal arch near Arlington National Cemetery, and renovations to other prominent Washington landmarks. He has characterized the projects as long-overdue improvements that will enhance the appearance of the nation’s capital, while critics have questioned their costs, priorities, and impact on historic sites.

During his Reflecting Pool remarks, Trump jokingly suggested that the landmark might eventually bear his name before immediately clarifying that he was not serious. The president has repeatedly defended his interest in construction and restoration projects, maintaining that they are an important part of improving Washington.

Clinton, however, argued that the president’s emphasis on such undertakings reflected what she considers an increasingly self-centered approach to governing.

“He wants to build tributes to himself, in the image of himself. I mean, he’s truly lost the plot of being president for the American people.”

The criticism came on the eve of Tuesday’s midterm elections, as Republicans sought to maintain control of Congress amid voter concerns about the economy, rising living costs, and the conflict with Iran. Trump spent recent weeks campaigning for Republican candidates across the country before returning to Washington for Monday’s appearance at the Reflecting Pool.

{Matzav.com}

It is with great sadness that Matzav.com reports the petirah of Rav Yaakov Bochbot-Lev zt”l, a distinguished talmid chochom, longtime dayan and av beis din in Tel Aviv, and one of the earliest talmidim of Rav Ovadia Yosef zt”l.

Rav Lev was born in Morocco in 1943 and displayed a remarkable dedication to Torah from his youth. As a young man, he learned in Yeshivas Chevron, where he developed the foundations of his Torah scholarship under the guidance of the roshei yeshiva.

Among his foremost rabbeim was Rav Yechezkel Sarna zt”l, the legendary rosh yeshiva of Chevron, whose influence remained with him throughout his life.

Rav Lev subsequently became one of the earliest talmidim of Rav Ovadia Yosef zt”l, learning in the kollel headed by the future Sephardic posek hador. He developed a close relationship with Rav Ovadia and maintained his connection to his rabbeim over the years.

A particularly memorable moment in his life occurred at his wedding, which was attended by both Rav Yechezkel Sarna and Rav Ovadia Yosef. A photograph from the simcha, showing the two gedolei Torah together, remains a treasured record of the occasion.

Rav Lev went on to serve for many years as a dayan on the Tel Aviv–Yafo Rabbinical Court, eventually holding the position of av beis din. In that capacity, he was entrusted with adjudicating complex halachic matters and applying his extensive Torah knowledge to the responsibilities of the rabbinical judiciary.

His years on the beis din were characterized by dedication to the careful examination of halachic questions and the responsibility of rendering judgments in accordance with Torah law.

Alongside his demanding judicial responsibilities, Rav Lev remained deeply committed to harbotzas haTorah. He devoted considerable time to teaching and guiding younger talmidei chachomim, sharing his knowledge and encouraging others in their Torah growth.

Following his retirement from the rabbinical court, Rav Lev continued his lifelong avodas hakodesh as rosh kollel of Kollel Ohel Tamar in Bnei Brak, where he remained immersed in Torah learning and the development of the next generation of Torah scholars.

Those who knew him described an extraordinary masmid whose commitment to learning began in his earliest years and never diminished. His broad bekius was accompanied by a genuine simchas haTorah, and he approached his learning with enthusiasm and dedication.

Despite his stature in Torah and his distinguished position in the world of dayanus, Rav Lev was known for his humility and unassuming manner. He greeted others with warmth and a pleasant countenance, and his deliberate, heartfelt tefillos reflected the seriousness with which he approached his avodas Hashem.

Rav Lev merited to establish a distinguished family of talmidei chachomim and marbitzei Torah who continue his legacy.

Among his sons are Rav Boruch Tzvi Lev, rosh yeshiva of Yeshivas Yesodos HaTorah; Rav Yehuda Lev, a prominent avreich at Kollel Beis Hillel; and Rav Moshe Lev.

Rav Lev also endured profound personal sorrow with the petirah of his son, Rav Chaim Lev zt”l, a son-in-law of Rav Meir Amsalem, who passed away approximately fifteen years ago following a serious illness.

The levayah took place Monday evening at the Nachalas Moshe shul at 36 Harav Meltzer Street in Bnei Brak. The procession continued to the Ponevezh Cemetery, where Rav Lev was laid to rest.

Yehi zichro boruch.

{Matzav.com}

Growing antisemitism in Britain is prompting increasing numbers of Jewish doctors, dentists, and other healthcare professionals to consider relocating to Israel, with some saying they no longer feel safe openly identifying as Jews in the United Kingdom. The concerns were evident at a recent gathering in London, where approximately 150 British medical professionals explored opportunities to continue their careers in Israel.

The event, known as MedEx UK, was held last week as part of an international initiative designed to help medical professionals make aliyah. The program provides assistance with professional licensing, employment opportunities, financial grants, and the bureaucratic requirements involved in transferring medical qualifications to Israel.

For many participants, the decision to relocate reflects a combination of longstanding aspirations to live in Eretz Yisroel and mounting unease about the atmosphere facing British Jews, particularly since the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks.

Among those attending was 59-year-old dentist Shlomo Franks of Edgware, who previously lived in Israel for five years approximately three decades ago. Speaking to the British Jewish Chronicle, Franks explained that he had always intended to return but had been waiting for the appropriate time.

Franks said that his two youngest children, one of whom is studying medicine and hopes to serve in the IDF as a psychologist, are expected to complete their university studies next year. The family intends to relocate together, and he plans to continue practicing dentistry in Israel.

Although his desire to make aliyah predates the current wave of antisemitism, Franks acknowledged that the deteriorating situation in Britain has provided an additional reason to move. Even if conditions in the United Kingdom were entirely favorable, he said, he would still want to live in Israel.

A 23-year-old medical student from Hackney, who requested anonymity, described a more immediate concern. She said she has become uncomfortable revealing her Jewish identity to others and does not want to spend her professional life in an environment where she feels compelled to conceal who she is.

She also expressed frustration with working conditions in Britain’s healthcare system, citing inadequate compensation and a lack of professional respect. In contrast, she believes Israel offers medical professionals a wider variety of opportunities to develop their skills and contribute meaningfully.

The student is particularly interested in rural medicine and hopes to practice in an underserved community, possibly on a small kibbutz or in another rural area. She described Israel’s medical environment as more innovative and welcoming than the one she expects to encounter in Britain.

Another prospective immigrant, a family physician who also asked not to be identified, said she had grown up in a strongly Zionist household and had long envisioned eventually living in Israel. However, the events of October 7 and the subsequent rise in antisemitism accelerated what had previously been a distant plan.

She compared the gradual normalization of antisemitic behavior in Britain to a frog sitting in water that slowly grows hotter. People become accustomed to increasingly troubling circumstances, she explained, until an incident forces them to recognize how much their surroundings have changed.

The physician said friends already practicing medicine in Israel have described a substantially different professional atmosphere, one in which they feel their work makes an immediate and meaningful contribution to patients’ lives.

A fourth woman interviewed at the event described a similar transformation in her thinking. She had previously resisted moving to Israel because she was determined to build her medical career in Britain. As conditions changed, however, she reconsidered and eventually became the person encouraging her family to make aliyah.

She said she looks forward to practicing medicine in a country where colleagues naturally understand Jewish holidays, family obligations, and the rhythms of Jewish life. In Britain, she explained, Jewish medical professionals frequently find themselves having to explain religious practices and personal commitments that are readily understood in Israel.

The gathering also attracted participants from outside Britain. Esther Price, a 53-year-old psychiatrist from Budapest, traveled to London specifically to attend the event and investigate employment opportunities in Israel.

Price said her decision was motivated primarily by a desire to live in the Jewish homeland rather than by professional considerations. She hopes to work in community psychiatry in the Haifa area but emphasized that living in Israel is more important to her than securing a particular position.

Daniel Lipcher, 51, who oversees medical staffing at Terem and immigrated to Israel from Essex more than 20 years ago, was among the professionals offering guidance to prospective immigrants.

Lipcher said that although he originally moved for Zionist reasons, developments in Britain have reinforced his satisfaction with that decision. He recalled traveling on the London Underground while openly wearing a yarmulke without feeling threatened, something he believes would be considerably more frightening today.

He expressed particular concern about Jewish employees in Britain’s healthcare system who may encounter hostility from colleagues because of their Jewish identity or their connection to Israel.

At the same time, Lipcher said he regretted that personal security concerns were pushing some Jews toward aliyah. He expressed hope that those considering relocation would also recognize the many positive aspects of living and working in Israel.

Another important source of assistance comes from medical researcher Mikey Liebert and his wife, Rebecca, a family physician. The couple moved to Israel from Manchester in 2021 and subsequently established a WhatsApp support network for English-speaking medical professionals navigating the aliyah process.

What began as a small group created after Rebecca encountered difficulties finding professional guidance has developed into a community of more than 700 healthcare workers. Members assist one another with employment searches, licensing procedures, paperwork, and the practical challenges of establishing medical careers in Israel.

The growing interest among British medical professionals comes as Israel seeks to address a significant shortage of physicians. Population growth and the approaching retirement of many doctors, particularly those who immigrated from the former Soviet Union during the 1990s, have increased pressure on the country’s healthcare system.

Israel currently has approximately 3.5 practicing physicians per 1,000 residents, compared with an average of 3.9 across OECD countries. The shortage has prompted Israeli authorities and organizations involved in medical aliyah to intensify efforts to recruit qualified physicians from overseas.

Programs such as MedEx are intended to make that transition easier by helping foreign-trained doctors understand Israeli licensing requirements, identify suitable positions, and obtain financial and professional support before and after their arrival.

For British Jewish medical professionals increasingly concerned about their future in the United Kingdom, those initiatives are providing a practical pathway toward building new lives and careers in Israel.

Sen. Ted Cruz has launched a blistering attack on Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, accusing him of tolerating antisemitism and refusing to distance himself from a controversial political advertisement that connects Americans’ rising grocery bills to U.S. military assistance for Israel. The dispute has intensified in the final hours before Tuesday’s election, with President Donald Trump also attacking El-Sayed over what he describes as hostility toward Jews and white Americans.

The controversy has become a major issue in Michigan’s closely watched Senate contest between El-Sayed and Republican Mike Rogers, particularly after Democratic Congresswoman Haley Stevens, who lost the party’s Senate primary to El-Sayed, broke with her own party and endorsed Rogers.

Speaking Monday on his “Verdict with Ted Cruz” podcast alongside co-host Ben Ferguson, Cruz condemned an advertisement associated with progressive commentator Cenk Uygur that depicts a couple struggling to afford groceries while drawing attention to American military aid to Israel.

“He ran this ad that was one of the most vicious Jew-hating ads I’ve ever seen,” Cruz said.

The Texas senator argued that the commercial promotes an antisemitic narrative by suggesting that American families are struggling financially because the United States provides assistance to Israel.

“You literally have a husband and wife saying, ‘We can’t afford bananas,'” Cruz said. “I mean, it’s a hateful ad.”

Cruz also pointed to Uygur’s family connection to political streamer Hasan Piker, his nephew, who has faced repeated accusations of making antisemitic statements. The association has become a source of controversy surrounding El-Sayed’s candidacy, with critics demanding that he explicitly reject the rhetoric of individuals supporting his campaign.

President Trump escalated his criticism early Tuesday morning, issuing a sharply worded statement on Truth Social attacking El-Sayed and urging Michigan voters to support Rogers.

“Abdul El-Sayed Hates Jews and Hates Blacks. Don’t feel bad, he also Hates Whites. Only fools would vote for him in the Michigan race for the U.S. Senate! He will, 100%, do you in! VOTE FOR MIKE ROGERS. President DJT,” Trump wrote.

The president had previously criticized El-Sayed’s positions on Israel and warned Jewish voters against supporting him. At an October 25 campaign rally, Trump declared, “Any Jewish person that supports this guy should be ashamed of themselves.”

Cruz’s objections extend beyond the advertisement. He accused El-Sayed of maintaining ideological connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization, and argued that those alleged associations should raise serious concerns about the candidate’s suitability for federal office.

“I laid out the evidence systematically, objectively the evidence, demonstrating that Abdul El-Sayed has been a vocal, passionate, and public supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood for decades,” Cruz said.

El-Sayed has denied belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood or intending to join it, and his campaign has characterized the allegations as anti-Muslim smears. He has also distanced himself from the controversial advertisement, which was produced by an outside political organization rather than his campaign, saying he disagreed with its contents.

Cruz nevertheless maintained that his criticism concerned political ideology and national security rather than El-Sayed’s religion.

“I agree, and I will defend his right to pray till my dying breath. I’m not talking about his praying. I’m talking about an ideology,” he said.

The senator also accused major television networks of failing to examine his allegations adequately. He singled out CBS News’ Margaret Brennan and NBC News’ Kristen Welker, contending that their programs had portrayed his criticism as religious prejudice without sufficiently addressing the evidence he claimed to possess.

“Apparently the networks don’t cover facts. They’re not in the news business,” Cruz said.

The dispute took an extraordinary political turn Sunday when Stevens, who narrowly lost the Democratic Senate primary to El-Sayed, announced that she would support Rogers instead. Her decision came after a bitter disagreement over the Israel-related advertisement and El-Sayed’s association with Hasan Piker.

“I don’t belong in Abdul’s campaign. I do not stand with Hasan Piker,” Stevens said in a video explaining her decision.

Stevens subsequently appeared alongside Rogers at a Detroit church service, where she confirmed that she intended to vote for the Republican Senate nominee while continuing to support Democrats in other races.

Cruz hailed her decision as an unusual act of political independence.

“It was a demonstration of courage. It was a demonstration of principle. It was putting country first before party,” he said.

The senator said the disagreement had intensified after Stevens’ fiancé, Jason Turkish, publicly announced his support for Rogers. Stevens initially remained behind El-Sayed but later demanded that he repudiate the advertisement. According to Cruz, the dispute culminated in Stevens being told not to attend a planned Democratic unity event.

Stevens’ decision drew strong criticism from Democratic leaders, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Schumer described the endorsement as a “despicable betrayal,” while Pelosi called it a “horrific endorsement” of Rogers.

“Schumer and Pelosi care only about power. Nothing else matters,” Cruz responded on social media.

Republicans are hoping Stevens’ endorsement will influence moderate Democrats, Jewish voters, and independents who remain undecided about the Senate race. Trump praised her decision as an act of political bravery and suggested that she might eventually join the Republican Party.

“I think this could ensure that Mike Rogers wins,” Cruz said.

El-Sayed’s campaign, meanwhile, has sought to turn the controversy into a fundraising and organizing opportunity. His campaign reported raising $2.4 million following Stevens’ endorsement, while supporters argued that the dispute demonstrated his independence from the Democratic establishment.

Cruz remained adamant that Stevens deserved recognition for crossing party lines despite the political consequences.

“What she did, I admire,” Cruz said. “It was brave. It was courageous. It was at a cost. And it made a difference.”

{Matzav.com}

The United States will oversee a new round of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine in Abu Dhabi on November 10 and 11, President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff announced Monday, as Washington intensifies its diplomatic efforts to bring an end to the war that has devastated Ukraine.

The discussions, scheduled to take place in the United Arab Emirates, will involve representatives from both countries and focus on security arrangements following a potential peace agreement, measures to reduce hostilities, humanitarian concerns, and possible steps toward a broader settlement.

“The United States will mediate working-level negotiations between Ukraine and Russia on November 10–11 in Abu Dhabi, advancing President Trump’s mission to end the war,” Witkoff wrote on the social platform X. “Discussions will focus on post-war security arrangements, de-escalation, humanitarian efforts, and next steps toward peace.”

Ahead of the Abu Dhabi meetings, American negotiators are expected to travel to Brussels this week for consultations with representatives of France, Germany, Britain, and NATO. Those discussions will address the security commitments Ukraine might receive under a future agreement, the broader European security framework, and financial arrangements for rebuilding Ukraine after the fighting ends.

Witkoff said the administration hopes to capitalize on diplomatic contacts already conducted in several European cities and Russia.

“We look forward to building on the progress made in Kyiv, Oslo, and St. Petersburg toward a comprehensive, durable peace agreement that delivers lasting security for generations to come,” Witkoff concluded.

The announcement represents another effort by the Trump administration to bring Moscow and Kyiv closer to a negotiated settlement, although major differences remain over territory, security guarantees, and the conditions under which hostilities could end.

According to a senior American official, Witkoff and Jared Kushner are expected to lead the US delegation in Abu Dhabi. Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly agreed to participate in another round of trilateral discussions after meeting Witkoff in St. Petersburg approximately two weeks ago.

The upcoming negotiations would mark the resumption of direct American-mediated peace talks that were interrupted in February, before the outbreak of the US-Israel conflict with Iran. Washington is seeking progress before winter brings additional hardship to Ukrainian civilians and further strains the country’s energy infrastructure.

Despite the renewed diplomatic activity, Russia and Ukraine remain sharply divided over the conditions of a settlement, particularly territorial control and the guarantees Kyiv would receive against future Russian aggression. Trump has recently increased pressure on Ukraine to reach an agreement, while Moscow has shown little willingness to accept an immediate comprehensive ceasefire.

The diplomatic announcement came amid continued Russian attacks on Ukraine. On Monday, Russian strikes struck a humanitarian aid distribution center and nearby shelter in Komyshuvakha, in the Zaporizhzhia region, killing at least 26 people, according to Ukrainian authorities. Approximately 20 others were reported missing, with rescue operations complicated by additional Russian drone activity.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky warned that Russia was preparing another major wave of attacks against Ukrainian infrastructure, potentially timed to coincide with international attention surrounding Tuesday’s American midterm elections.

Zelensky said Ukraine had “intel that Russia is preparing a new massive attack on our country,” with Russian forces focusing on “energy and logistics.”

“The assumption is basically that tomorrow the world will be watching the American midterms, and what is happening here in Ukraine, along with our difficulties with air defense and Patriot missiles, will be overlooked,” the Ukrainian president continued.

The violence followed the expiration Sunday of a rare six-day humanitarian ceasefire in the Russian-occupied town of Oleshky, in southern Ukraine. The limited agreement, facilitated through efforts involving First Lady Melania Trump, had allowed humanitarian personnel to deliver assistance and conduct evacuation operations.

Both Moscow and Kyiv acknowledged the importance of the humanitarian mission, although Ukrainian military officials accused Russian forces of exploiting the temporary pause to reinforce their positions and replenish supplies. Russian authorities disputed Ukrainian criticism and described the operation as successful.

The White House hopes the limited cooperation demonstrated during the humanitarian mission can help create momentum for the broader negotiations in Abu Dhabi. However, no comprehensive ceasefire has been announced, and fighting continues across multiple areas of Ukraine as preparations for the talks move forward.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump announced Tuesday morning that the United States will stop providing Israel with approximately $4 billion in annual financial assistance by the end of 2026, revealing that he and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu reached an agreement months ago to terminate the longstanding arrangement.

Speaking during an interview with Fox & Friends on Election Day, Trump said the decision was made jointly with Netanyahu and insisted that Israel no longer requires the billions of dollars Washington has traditionally provided, primarily for military purposes.

“Now, as far as paying Israel, Bibi Netanyahu and I have made a deal that we give Israel $4 billion a year, and we made a deal months ago that we’re stopping,” Trump said.

“We’ve already agreed that by the end of this year we won’t be paying Israel. Now we’ll help Israel if they need it.”

The announcement represents a potentially historic change in American policy toward Israel, which has received billions of dollars in annual U.S. military assistance for decades. The president emphasized, however, that ending direct financial support would not mean abandoning Israel or preventing it from purchasing American weapons.

Trump said Israel has developed the economic and military strength to finance its own defense requirements and suggested that the relationship between the two countries should increasingly be based on Israel purchasing American military equipment rather than receiving it through annual assistance packages.

The president also linked the decision to American domestic politics, arguing that Democrats and left-wing politicians have repeatedly used U.S. financial assistance to Israel as a political issue against Republicans. He specifically pointed to Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, whose opposition to American military assistance for Israel has become a prominent issue in his campaign against Republican Mike Rogers.

According to Trump, eliminating the annual payments would remove a major source of political criticism while allowing Washington to maintain its close military and strategic relationship with Israel.

The announcement raises immediate questions about the future of an existing U.S.-Israel military assistance agreement signed in 2016 during the Obama administration. That 10-year memorandum of understanding provides Israel with $38 billion in military assistance between fiscal years 2019 and 2028, including approximately $3.3 billion annually in foreign military financing and another $500 million for missile defense cooperation.

Under that arrangement, Israel is scheduled to continue receiving American assistance through 2028, two years beyond the deadline Trump announced Tuesday. It remains unclear whether the administration intends to seek congressional approval to terminate the existing funding arrangements, renegotiate the agreement, or implement a different mechanism for ending the payments.

Netanyahu’s office had not immediately issued a public response confirming the details of the agreement described by Trump.

Nevertheless, Netanyahu has previously expressed support for gradually ending Israel’s dependence on American military assistance. In a May interview with CBS News, the Israeli prime minister said he wanted Israel to become financially independent of U.S. military aid within the coming decade.

That position was reinforced in June, when Netanyahu expressed support for a Republican congressional initiative that would replace direct American military assistance with a framework under which Israel would purchase American weapons using its own funds.

The proposal, advanced by Republican Representatives Marlin Stutzman of Indiana and Abraham Hamadeh of Arizona, envisioned a new U.S.-Israel defense relationship emphasizing joint military development, weapons production and technological cooperation rather than traditional foreign assistance.

At the time, Netanyahu indicated that such an arrangement reflected the direction he wanted the relationship to take.

Trump’s announcement Tuesday, however, suggests a far more accelerated timetable than Netanyahu previously outlined, potentially ending annual American payments within weeks rather than gradually phasing them out over several years.

The development comes at a particularly sensitive moment for Israel, which continues to face serious security threats from Iran and its regional proxies. American military assistance has long been a central component of Israel’s defense procurement, helping finance advanced aircraft, precision-guided weapons, missile defense systems and other critical equipment.

A transition away from direct American funding could require substantial changes to Israel’s defense budget and long-term procurement planning, although the extent of those changes will depend on the final terms of any agreement.

The announcement also comes as the Trump administration confronts growing political divisions over American support for Israel, with criticism of military assistance increasingly emerging from both progressive Democrats and some conservative Republicans.

For now, Trump has made clear that he intends to end the annual payments while preserving the broader strategic alliance.

Whether the arrangement can be implemented by December 31, and how it will affect the existing congressional funding commitments, remains to be determined.

{Matzav.com}

In an extraordinary fundraising achievement, supporters of Mosdos Pnei Menachem, under the leadership of Rav Shaul Alter, pledged an astounding $72,275,000 in a single evening toward the construction of a major new Torah center in Yerushalayim.

The commitments were announced at a Motzoei Shabbos melava malka in Tampa, Florida, marking one of the most remarkable fundraising events in the recent history of the Torah community.

The gathering, held at the conclusion of the third annual Chavrusa Convention, brought together approximately 150 prominent philanthropists and supporters of the mosdos from across the Torah world. Participants spent Shabbos in the presence of Rav Shaul Alter and his brother, Rav Doniel Chaim Alter, participating in Torah learning, discussions, and gatherings devoted to the future development of the rapidly expanding Pnei Menachem institutions.

The highlight of the weekend came at the concluding dinner, when Rav Nachman Wideslavsky, executive director of Mosdos Pnei Menachem, announced that the pledges had reached $72,275,000. The extraordinary sum represented a major advance toward the establishment of the planned Pnei Menachem World Torah Center, an ambitious complex intended to become the central headquarters of the kehillah in Yerushalayim.

The new complex is planned for Rechov Torah MiTzion in central Yerushalayim, on the site formerly occupied by the headquarters of the Israel Broadcasting Authority. The property’s transformation into a major Torah institution carries particular significance for the kehillah, which envisions the location becoming a center of Torah learning, chassidus, and communal life.

Architect R’ Aharon Ostreicher has designed the proposed development, which will include an expansive beis medrash, a large hall for tischen and other gatherings, numerous shtieblach, mikvaos, and facilities to accommodate the growing needs of the Pnei Menachem community.

Additional sections of the complex are expected to provide dedicated accommodations for talmidei chachamim and mechabrei sefarim, along with a Torah heritage center, simchah halls, and other facilities serving the mosdos and their members. The project is intended to accommodate thousands of Yidden from Eretz Yisroel and overseas who participate in the kehillah’s activities and seek opportunities to learn and gather in the presence of the rosh yeshiva.

The dinner was chaired by Rav Yisrael Stern of London, who helped oversee an evening of major dedications and financial commitments. Among the most significant contributions were the dedications of 26 pillars of the future beis medrash, each sponsored for $1 million. Additional major dedications helped bring the total pledges above $72 million.

The commitments are expected to be fulfilled in stages as the construction project advances, providing the mosdos with substantial financial backing for the development of the new center.

During the gathering, Rav Shaul Alter addressed the supporters and spoke about the spiritual significance of establishing a major makom Torah at a location previously associated with Israeli broadcasting.

“From the very place where kefirah was once disseminated, the pure voice of Torah will now emanate,” the rosh yeshiva declared.

He expressed the hope that the new center would embody the words of the posuk, “Ki miTzion teitzei Torah, udvar Hashem miYerushalayim,” with Torah radiating outward from Yerushalayim to communities throughout the world.

In recognition of their participation in the historic undertaking, Rav Shaul presented the benefactors with symbolic golden pillars, representing their partnership in establishing the future home of the mosdos.

The ambitious building initiative comes amid the continued expansion of Mosdos Pnei Menachem, which was established in 2020 and has since developed an extensive network of Torah and communal institutions under Rav Shaul’s leadership.

The network includes yeshivos gedolos, yeshivos ketanos, Talmud Torahs, kollelim, shuls, and organizations devoted to chessed and communal assistance. Its institutions operate in Yerushalayim, Bnei Brak, Beit Shemesh, Ashdod, Haifa, New York, and London, serving a growing community of talmidim, avreichim, and families.

The mosdos emphasize intensive Torah learning, particularly iyun and hasmadah, together with the teachings and derech of the Gerer Rebbes. The proposed world center is intended to provide a permanent central home for these activities and accommodate the network’s continued growth.

Rav Shaul traveled to Florida last Tuesday, immediately following Israel’s elections, to participate in the convention. Before departing Eretz Yisroel, he had asked members of his kehillah to daven for the success of his mission, reflecting the importance he attached to securing the future of the mosdos.

The total cost of the proposed Torah center is estimated at between $180 million and $240 million, making it one of the most ambitious construction undertakings of its kind. Although the pledges announced in Tampa represent a substantial portion of the anticipated budget, additional fundraising will be necessary before the entire project can be completed.

Organizers are now preparing for the next stages of development, with the financial commitments obtained at the convention expected to play a central role in advancing the construction plans.

The $72,275,000 announced at the Motzoei Shabbos dinner represents pledged contributions rather than funds already collected, with payments scheduled to be made as the project progresses.

{Matzav.com}

Americans headed to the polls Tuesday in high-stakes midterm elections that will determine control of Congress, decide governorships across the country, and deliver a major political verdict on President Donald Trump’s second term. Among the most closely watched contests is the race for New York governor, where Democrat Kathy Hochul is fighting to retain her position against Republican Bruce Blakeman, the Nassau County executive seeking to become the state’s first Republican governor in more than two decades.

The elections come at a particularly consequential moment for Washington, with Republicans defending narrow congressional majorities and Democrats hoping to capitalize on voter concerns over the economy, rising living costs, immigration, and the war with Iran. All 435 House seats, 35 Senate seats, and 36 governorships are being contested, along with numerous state legislative and local offices.

In New York, the Hochul-Blakeman contest has attracted considerable attention, particularly in the New York City suburbs and among voters frustrated by taxes, crime, affordability, and the state’s political direction.

Blakeman, who has served as Nassau County executive since 2022, has campaigned on promises to reduce taxes and utility costs, strengthen law enforcement, and challenge policies enacted under Hochul’s administration. He has also sought to appeal to voters dissatisfied with the state’s handling of public safety, immigration, and government spending.

Hochul, who became governor in 2021 and won a full term in 2022, has emphasized her administration’s economic policies, childcare initiatives, and opposition to the Trump administration. She has portrayed the election as a choice between continuing Democratic leadership in Albany and bringing Republican policies to New York.

Recent polling has consistently shown Hochul ahead, although Blakeman has maintained that voter dissatisfaction could produce an upset. A Siena poll released October 28 showed Hochul leading 54% to 40%, while a Marist survey placed her ahead 53% to 42%. A Quinnipiac poll also gave Hochul a double-digit advantage.

Despite those numbers, Republicans are hoping for a stronger-than-expected turnout on Long Island, in upstate communities, and among voters concerned about affordability and public safety.

The contest has particular significance for the frum communities of Brooklyn, Queens, the Five Towns, and other parts of New York, where issues involving education, public safety, religious accommodations, and relations with state government remain important concerns.

Hochul’s running mate is former New York City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, while Blakeman is running alongside Todd Hood, an upstate sheriff.

New Yorkers are also voting in statewide races for attorney general and comptroller. Democratic Attorney General Letitia James is seeking another term against Republican Saritha Komatireddy, a former federal prosecutor. Democratic Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli faces Republican Joseph Hernandez, a businessman with a background in biotechnology and finance.

All 213 seats in the New York State Legislature are also on the ballot, with Republicans hoping to make gains in the Assembly and Senate even as Democrats remain the dominant party in Albany.

Several New York congressional races could also prove decisive in determining control of the House of Representatives. In the 17th Congressional District, which includes Rockland County and portions of the Hudson Valley, Republican Congressman Mike Lawler is defending his seat against Democrat Cait Conley. The contest is receiving national attention because of the district’s competitive political makeup and its sizable Orthodox Jewish population.

In the 3rd Congressional District, covering parts of Nassau County and Queens, Democratic Congressman Tom Suozzi faces Republican Michael LiPetri in a rematch of their close 2024 contest. Suozzi narrowly defeated LiPetri two years ago, and Republicans are hoping to reclaim the seat.

Another important Long Island contest is unfolding in the 4th Congressional District, where Democratic Congresswoman Laura Gillen faces Republican Jeanine Driscoll. Meanwhile, Democratic Congressman Josh Riley is defending his 19th District seat against Republican Peter Oberacker in another closely watched contest.

In Brooklyn and Staten Island, Republican Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis is seeking reelection against Democrat Mike DeCillis. Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, whose district includes portions of Brooklyn, is also on the ballot as he seeks another term and hopes to become House speaker if Democrats capture the majority.

Elsewhere in the country, gubernatorial elections are generating enormous interest. Competitive races in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, Ohio, Iowa, Kansas, and Alaska could reshape state governments and influence national politics well beyond Election Day.

In Michigan and Wisconsin, the governorships are particularly important because both states are presidential battlegrounds. The results could influence future debates over election administration, abortion policy, taxation, and state spending.

In Georgia, Republicans and Democrats are battling for control of the governor’s mansion in a state that has become increasingly competitive in national elections. Ohio, meanwhile, is choosing a successor to Republican Governor Mike DeWine, who is term-limited.

Florida voters are also selecting a new governor to succeed Ron DeSantis, who cannot seek another consecutive term. The outcome will determine who leads one of the country’s largest Republican-controlled states as it continues to experience rapid population growth and debates over property insurance, housing costs, and education.

The battle for the U.S. Senate is another central feature of Tuesday’s elections. Republicans entered Election Day controlling 53 seats, while Democrats and the two independents who caucus with them hold 47. Democrats need a net gain of four seats to secure a majority, making competitive contests in Maine, Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina, Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, and Texas especially significant.

In Maine, Republican Senator Susan Collins is defending her seat against Democrat Troy Jackson. In Ohio, former Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown is attempting a political comeback against Republican Senator Jon Husted. Texas features a closely watched contest between Republican Ken Paxton and Democrat James Talarico, while Michigan’s open Senate seat is being contested by Republican Mike Rogers and Democrat Abdul El-Sayed.

The House elections are particularly consequential because Democrats need a net gain of only three seats to secure control of the chamber. A Democratic victory would give the party the ability to block Republican legislation, initiate investigations into the Trump administration, and exercise greater influence over federal spending.

Republicans, meanwhile, are seeking to preserve their congressional majorities to allow Trump to continue pursuing his domestic and foreign policy priorities during the final two years of his presidency.

The elections are taking place against a backdrop of economic uncertainty and voter dissatisfaction. Inflation, housing affordability, immigration, public safety, and the conflict with Iran have featured prominently in campaigns across the country.

Democrats have sought to portray the elections as a referendum on Trump’s leadership, while Republicans have emphasized their record on immigration enforcement, conservative policies, and national security.

Millions of Americans cast ballots before Election Day through early voting and absentee voting. In New York alone, nearly two million voters had already participated before polling stations opened Tuesday morning.

Polls opened at 6 a.m. in New York and New Jersey, with voting scheduled to continue until 9 p.m. in New York and 8 p.m. in New Jersey. Election officials cautioned that closely contested races may not be resolved immediately, particularly in states where large numbers of absentee and mail-in ballots must still be processed.

With the future of Congress, dozens of governorships, and numerous state legislatures at stake, Tuesday’s results could substantially alter the American political landscape and determine the direction of the country for the remainder of Trump’s presidency.

{Matzav.com}

A woman who previously worked for Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed is among 12 defendants facing federal charges in connection with an alleged campaign of threats, vandalism, and intimidation targeting Jewish residents and University of Michigan officials. The expanding criminal case has drawn renewed attention to El-Sayed’s campaign just before Tuesday’s midterm elections.

Mariam Odeh, 24, of Dearborn, Michigan, was employed by El-Sayed’s Senate campaign earlier this year before being charged in June. Her name appears in a 63-page superseding federal indictment that now includes a dozen defendants following the addition of four individuals announced by the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Federal prosecutors accuse members of the alleged conspiracy of participating in a coordinated effort to frighten Jewish families and university officials through threatening messages, property destruction, and attacks on private residences.

US Attorney Jerome Gorgon condemned the alleged conduct and drew a connection between the accusations and the long history of antisemitic violence.

“From Pharaoh to Hitler to Hamas, those who terrorize Jews have been the bad guys,” Gorgon said. “As Americans, our job is to fight the bad guys.”

According to the indictment, Odeh served as president of Students Allied for Freedom and Equality, an anti-Israel student organization at the University of Michigan. She faces one federal count of “conspiracy to transmit threats in interstate and foreign commerce,” an offense carrying a maximum prison sentence of five years if convicted.

The indictment describes an alleged pattern of intimidation that included threatening graffiti, shattered windows, and glass containers filled with foul-smelling chemicals thrown into residential properties. Prosecutors contend that the incidents were intended to frighten the targeted individuals and their families.

Investigators also allege that participants left red handprints and inverted red triangles at targeted homes. Federal authorities identify the inverted triangle as a symbol used by Hamas to designate targets. Images of the vandalized properties were allegedly circulated online alongside threatening language, including “you cannot hide.”

The investigation has also placed El-Sayed’s campaign under scrutiny because of Odeh’s previous employment. Federal campaign finance disclosures show that she received two payments earlier this year, totaling $747. The campaign paid her $154 on March 3 and another $593 on March 13.

Campaign spokeswoman Roxie Richner said Odeh had worked as an hourly employee for approximately two weeks and that her association with the campaign ended on April 15. However, a pretrial services officer previously told a judge that Odeh had reported “full-time employment for approximately four months.”

El-Sayed has previously questioned whether the prosecution was motivated by the defendants’ political activities rather than their alleged conduct. Speaking at a campaign event in June, he suggested that the decision to bring charges reflected selective enforcement.

“It’s a lot more about what you’re advocating for that gets you indicted or not indicted, rather than what you did,” El-Sayed said.

The Justice Department’s latest announcement, issued Friday, identified the four additional defendants as Henry David MacKeen-Shapiro, 23; Aaron Hunter Vonbargen, 25; Joseph Mark Fisher, 23; and Srishti Tarana Sharma, 23. MacKeen-Shapiro and Vonbargen were arrested, while Fisher and Sharma remained at large at the time of the announcement.

According to federal authorities, the alleged conspiracy developed after Hamas’ October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks on Israel. Investigators say participants attempted to pressure the University of Michigan and businesses believed to have connections to Israel into ending those relationships through threats and acts of intimidation.

The alleged targets included the Jewish Federation of Detroit, two University of Michigan regents, other university administrators, a campus police lieutenant, a student, and two businesses. Prosecutors say the defendants used encrypted messaging applications, social media, and online research tools to identify targets, coordinate activities, and publicize their actions.

The indictment also describes alleged efforts to interfere with witnesses and prevent investigators from obtaining evidence. Authorities say some participants attempted to conceal their involvement while continuing to coordinate activities against individuals and institutions associated with Israel.

FBI Detroit Special Agent in Charge Jennifer Runyan warned that those responsible for threatening families would face prosecution.

“Those who believe they can threaten families, hide behind a group, and avoid accountability should think again. Justice will find you,” Runyan said.

The expanding prosecution comes as El-Sayed faces Republican Mike Rogers in Michigan’s closely watched Senate race. El-Sayed has already encountered criticism over his positions concerning Israel and his associations with controversial anti-Israel activists, issues that have complicated his efforts to win support among Jewish voters.

The Detroit News endorsed Rogers, citing concerns about El-Sayed’s limited governing experience and questions surrounding the removal of numerous older videos and social media posts. During their final debate, Rogers challenged El-Sayed over his foreign policy positions, asking whether he stood with America “or these terrorist groups overseas.”

Odeh has not been convicted, and the allegations against her and the other defendants remain subject to federal court proceedings. Prosecutors have not accused El-Sayed himself of participating in the alleged conspiracy.

{Matzav.com}

A 50-50 split in the US Senate following Tuesday’s midterm elections could plunge Washington into an unusual battle over control of the chamber, with neither political party guaranteed the powers traditionally held by the majority. Although Vice President JD Vance would retain the authority to break tied votes, Senate rules provide no automatic mechanism for determining which party would control committees, manage legislative business, or hold the majority leader’s position.

The possibility of an evenly divided Senate has raised questions about whether Republicans and Democrats could negotiate a power-sharing arrangement similar to those adopted following the 2000 and 2020 elections. Such an agreement would require cooperation between the parties at a time of deep political divisions.

Unlike a tied vote on legislation, which can be resolved by the vice president, an evenly divided Senate presents a broader institutional problem. The chamber’s 44 standing rules do not establish a procedure for awarding majority status when each party controls 50 seats. Nor does the Constitution automatically grant that designation to the party occupying the White House.

Under Senate procedures, legislation or nominations receiving an equal number of votes ordinarily fail unless the vice president intervenes to break the tie. But deciding which party chairs committees, sets the legislative agenda, and exercises other leadership privileges requires a separate political arrangement.

The Senate has encountered such circumstances before, including periods of deadlock in 1881 and 1954. The most relevant modern examples followed the presidential elections of 2000 and 2020, when closely divided results forced senators to negotiate how the chamber would operate.

Following the 2000 election, the Senate remained evenly divided after Democrat Maria Cantwell narrowly defeated Republican incumbent Slade Gorton in Washington state. The outcome was not finalized until December, leaving both parties facing the prospect of a chamber with 50 senators on each side.

Republican leader Trent Lott of Mississippi and Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota eventually negotiated an agreement establishing how the Senate would function. With Republican Dick Cheney becoming vice president, Republicans would hold the majority leader’s position, but Democrats received substantial procedural protections.

Under the arrangement, committees included equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats, while both parties received a role in managing legislative business. The agreement also established procedures for handling matters that became deadlocked in committee.

The full Senate approved the arrangement unanimously, reflecting a shared recognition that neither party could effectively conduct business without some accommodation.

Republicans wanted to prevent Democrats from obstructing President George W. Bush’s legislative priorities, while Democrats sought to preserve influence that would otherwise have been lost under conventional majority-party rules.

A similar problem emerged following the 2020 election, when Democrats won both Georgia Senate runoff contests on January 5, 2021. The victories of Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock produced another 50-50 Senate, with Vice President Kamala Harris providing Democrats the deciding vote on matters requiring a simple majority.

Negotiations over the chamber’s operating rules followed, with Republican leader Mitch McConnell pressing Democratic leader Chuck Schumer to adopt the framework used two decades earlier. The Senate ultimately approved a power-sharing agreement providing equal committee representation and procedures for resolving committee deadlocks.

A new 50-50 division in 2027 would present President Trump and Vice President Vance with a difficult political calculation. Republicans would possess the advantage of Vance’s tie-breaking authority, but the question of how much influence Democrats should receive over committee operations and Senate business could become a major source of conflict.

Vance’s constitutional position as president of the Senate would allow him to preside over proceedings and cast deciding votes when senators are equally divided. It would not, however, permit him to participate in Senate debates or exercise the legislative powers reserved for elected senators.

The president pro tempore, a position traditionally held by a senior member of the majority party, could also become a point of contention. Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa currently holds that office, while Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington is the senior Democrat who could be considered for the position if her party gained control.

The position carries additional significance because the president pro tempore stands third in the presidential line of succession, following the vice president and the speaker of the House.

A failure to reach an organizational agreement could leave committee assignments, leadership responsibilities, and the handling of legislation subject to prolonged disputes. Such uncertainty could also increase the burden on Vance, who might be called upon to preside more frequently while balancing his responsibilities in the Trump administration and any potential presidential ambitions for 2028.

The Senate’s procedures could further complicate negotiations. A proposed power-sharing resolution may face procedural obstacles, including the possibility of filibusters requiring 60 votes to overcome. Even if the agreement ultimately needs only a simple majority for approval, getting it to a final vote could require bipartisan cooperation.

Election results themselves may also take time to settle. Alaska’s Senate contest is among the races that could delay a final determination of party control, particularly if ranked-choice voting procedures or disputes over ballots prolong the counting process. Other closely contested states could likewise leave Washington waiting days or weeks for a definitive outcome.

A 50-50 Senate would not necessarily prevent Republicans from advancing every element of President Trump’s agenda. Vance could provide the decisive vote on nominations and certain measures requiring only a simple majority. However, most major legislation would still face the Senate’s 60-vote threshold for ending debate, leaving bipartisan support necessary for many proposals.

The ultimate arrangement would depend on negotiations among Senate leaders and the willingness of both parties to accept compromises. The historical agreements of 2001 and 2021 provide possible models, but neither would automatically govern the next Congress.

With the midterm elections approaching and control of the Senate potentially resting on a handful of competitive races, an evenly divided chamber could leave Republicans and Democrats arguing over the rules of power before the new Congress even begins its legislative work.

{Matzav.com}

House Democrats are demanding that Rep. Haley Stevens be expelled from their congressional caucus after the Michigan Democrat endorsed Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers over her own party’s nominee, Abdul El-Sayed, just two days before the midterm elections. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has indicated that party leaders will address the controversy when lawmakers return to Washington after Election Day.

Stevens, who narrowly lost the Democratic Senate primary to El-Sayed, stunned fellow Democrats Sunday by appearing alongside Rogers at a Detroit church and announcing her support for the Republican candidate. The endorsement immediately triggered calls for disciplinary action, including demands that she be stripped of her committee assignments.

Jeffries sharply criticized Stevens but stopped short of announcing an immediate punishment, leaving the decision about her remaining time in the Democratic caucus until after the elections.

“Haley Stevens made a terrible decision, blindsided everyone and isolated herself from the House Democratic caucus. We will have a discussion about appropriate next steps upon our return,” Jeffries told POLITICO.

A senior Democratic aide told Fox News Digital that Rep. Pete Aguilar of California, who chairs the House Democratic Caucus, would likely follow Jeffries’ lead in determining how to respond. Neither leader’s office provided additional comment.

Stevens, a four-term congresswoman whose House tenure ends in January, has maintained a strained relationship with El-Sayed since losing their Senate primary contest. Although she initially signaled support for the Democratic nominee, she repeatedly raised objections to his positions concerning Israel and his approach to Jewish and Black voters.

The dispute intensified over the weekend after Stevens indicated that she intended to attend a church event with El-Sayed and Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina as part of an effort to encourage Black voter participation. El-Sayed’s campaign subsequently made clear that it did not want her appearing at its events.

Stevens instead attended a different church service with Rogers and his wife, where she publicly threw her support behind the Republican. The move caught Democratic officials off guard, particularly after Stevens had reportedly assured colleagues that she would not endorse Rogers.

Rep. Debbie Dingell of Michigan said Stevens had told her “multiple times” during the weekend that she would not support the Republican candidate.

“I don’t know what changed between late Saturday and Sunday morning,” Dingell said during a CNN interview Monday.

The fallout extended beyond Capitol Hill. Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Curtis Hertel announced that Stevens would no longer be welcome in the state party following her decision to support Rogers.

Hertel wrote that Stevens “is not a current member of the Michigan Democratic Party, nor will she be in the future” after she backed Rogers.

Within the House Democratic Caucus, progressive lawmakers responded with particularly harsh criticism, accusing Stevens of abandoning her party at a critical moment in the election campaign.

Rep. Delia Ramirez of Illinois demanded Stevens’ removal, portraying the endorsement as a betrayal of Democratic voters and principles.

“Deplorable and embarrassing. Capitulating to fascism, Islamophobia, racism and the policies hurting everyday Americans makes you unfit to serve with the Democratic caucus,” Ramirez wrote on X. “Shame on Haley Stevens. She must be removed from the caucus.”

Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington joined the criticism, declaring that Stevens “has no place in our party,” according to POLITICO.

The controversy has also drawn attention to El-Sayed’s associations with progressive political commentator Hasan Piker and a political advertisement from an outside group that linked American support for Israel to rising household expenses. Stevens had pressed El-Sayed to condemn the advertisement more forcefully, describing its message as antisemitic. El-Sayed distanced himself from the advertisement, which his campaign did not produce, while accusing Stevens of attempting to reopen their primary battle.

The Democratic backlash has reached Stevens’ own congressional office. Multiple staff members resigned following her announcement, including longtime chief of staff Justin German, who said he was “shocked and heartbroken” by the endorsement. Stevens’ communications director, Logan Basch, also departed, with an automatic email response confirming that he was “no longer with the Office of Congresswoman Haley Stevens” as of November 1.

Stevens has defended her decision as a matter of personal conviction rather than a broader rejection of the Democratic Party. During a contentious CNN interview with Anderson Cooper, she maintained that she still wanted Democrats to win control of the Senate, even as she supported Rogers in Michigan.

“I absolutely do. I’m just casting this vote in my own way,” Stevens said. When Cooper questioned her decision to announce that vote publicly, she responded, “I’m just one person.”

The endorsement has received enthusiastic support from Republicans, including President Donald Trump, who praised Stevens for crossing party lines. Rogers, meanwhile, said he was honored by her support and portrayed their joint appearance as a statement against hatred and political division.

The dispute has created an unexpected complication in one of the country’s most closely watched Senate contests. Rogers and El-Sayed are competing for the seat being vacated by retiring Democratic Sen. Gary Peters, with control of the Senate potentially depending on the outcome.

The fight over Stevens’ future in the House caucus has also exposed disagreements among Democrats about how quickly to respond. Some lawmakers want her expelled immediately, while others have argued that the party should wait until after the election, particularly because Stevens is already preparing to leave Congress at the end of her term.

Organizations aligned with the Democratic Party have joined the campaign for disciplinary action. The progressive group IfNotNow was among those urging Jeffries to remove Stevens from the caucus and take away her committee assignments.

“As national organizations representing Jewish, Muslim, and Democratic voters opposed to Donald Trump’s war on Iran, which is responsible for the rising costs of gas and groceries and an affordability crisis that is taking a heavy toll on working families at a time when the future of our democracy is at stake,” the organization said in a statement shared with Fox News Digital. “We call on House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries to expel Congresswoman Stevens from the Democratic Caucus and strip her of her committee assignments.”

Removing Stevens from the Democratic caucus would prevent her from participating in its regular meetings and internal party deliberations. Any effort to revoke her committee positions would require additional procedural steps under the relevant House rules.

For now, Jeffries has left the matter unresolved until lawmakers return to Washington, while Stevens’ endorsement continues to reverberate through Michigan’s final hours of campaigning.

{Matzav.com}

[Video below.] President Donald Trump warned Monday night that American forces could attack Iran’s Pickaxe Mountain nuclear installation within an hour if he authorized the operation, delivering a fresh warning to Tehran while expressing optimism that Iranian leaders are eager to negotiate an agreement with Washington.

Speaking with Sean Hannity on Fox News, Trump said the United States remains firmly committed to ensuring that Iran never acquires nuclear weapons, regardless of whether that objective is achieved through diplomacy or additional military action.

“We cannot let Iran, an evil nation, who has killed many of our people, Soleimani is an example, no longer with us, but killed many of our people, we cannot let them have a nuclear weapon, and we won’t,” Trump stated.

Trump on Iran War: What we have done is amazing. pic.twitter.com/KZ1JkQyvyy

— Acyn (@Acyn) November 3, 2026

The president indicated that the American military retains the capability to strike additional Iranian nuclear targets with little advance notice, specifically identifying the heavily fortified Pickaxe Mountain site as a potential target.

“We bombed out all of their potential nuclear power. Now, we might have to go after Pickaxe [Mountain], but that’s not a big deal. We can do it in, literally, we can do that in one hour, okay, as soon as we want, at any time we want.”

Trump also rejected the characterization of the current American confrontation with Iran as a full-scale war, arguing that the prolonged absence of major combat operations and the devastating impact of American economic pressure have left Tehran in a weakened position.

“I mean, what’s a war? A war is fighting. Take a look at World War I, World War II, these were..when was the last time you saw us fighting with them? We go months and months. We talk. They’re in not a good negotiating position. Their economy is cratering because of us. They have 301 percent inflation. They don’t have money. They’re not paying their soldiers. They’re not paying their police. We’re not fighting a war.”

The president pointed to extensive damage inflicted on Iran’s military capabilities, including its naval forces, while maintaining that Tehran has strong incentives to reach an agreement before the confrontation escalates.

“This is a very soft war. We did have a big hit on them, and we hit them very hard, and that took out their navy, 159 ships are gone. But this isn’t like a war that’s going on. It could happen if they don’t make a deal, but they want to make a deal very badly, there’s a very good chance we make a deal,” he said.

The remarks came amid new disclosures about American military operations against Iranian targets. The Wall Street Journal reported that US forces struck Iran’s Qeshm Island on Monday, part of a series of limited attacks that had not previously been publicly acknowledged.

According to a senior US official cited by Axios, an American fighter jet destroyed an Iranian surface-to-air missile launcher after Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps personnel fired an anti-aircraft missile from the position. Washington characterized the response as a defensive operation.

American officials also disclosed that smaller strikes have been conducted over recent weeks, including operations intended to protect commercial shipping from Iranian threats in the Strait of Hormuz. The administration reportedly chose not to announce some of those missions to avoid creating the impression that a major new offensive was underway.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard, meanwhile, claimed Monday that it had shot down two American drones south of Qeshm Island. The claim came as tensions continued around the strategically important waterway, through which substantial volumes of international oil shipments ordinarily pass.

The president had already raised the possibility of targeting Pickaxe Mountain over the weekend, telling reporters Saturday that one or two Iranian sites remained to be addressed. The installation has attracted Western intelligence attention because of concerns that nuclear material could be stored there.

On Monday, Trump also sought to dispel speculation that he was preparing to launch a major new military campaign immediately after Tuesday’s midterm elections.

“We had a war with Iran. We won,” Trump told reporters. “I don’t know if you even call it a war because we haven’t been doing any fighting for months.”

In a separate interview with Axios, Trump indicated that he was not rushing toward a decision on renewed large-scale strikes. Diplomatic efforts have continued through regional intermediaries, with Qatar reportedly working on proposals intended to restart negotiations between Washington and Tehran.

Vice President JD Vance has also expressed optimism about the possibility of reaching an agreement, although substantial differences remain over Iran’s nuclear activities and the future of the Strait of Hormuz.

Financial markets reacted to the diplomatic developments Monday, with oil prices falling sharply as traders reassessed the likelihood of another major escalation. Brent crude dropped more than 7%, while US benchmark oil also registered a steep decline.

Trump seized on the falling prices as evidence that investors increasingly expect an agreement rather than another round of major fighting.

“Oil Prices are DROPPING LIKE A ROCK, down almost $10 a Barrel, A RECORD, because people feel that there will not be a War with Iran. Iran wants a settlement, as soon as possible. It could happen!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

{Matzav.com}

The US Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant an emergency request from President Donald Trump’s administration to isolate approximately 20,000 California mail-in ballots while federal authorities investigate whether the voters who submitted them are American citizens. The decision represents a setback for the administration’s election integrity efforts just one day before the midterm elections.

The justices declined to overturn lower court rulings that had prevented California election officials from separating ballots belonging to voters whose citizenship status was questioned by the Justice Department. The Supreme Court offered no explanation for its decision, and none of the justices issued a public dissent.

Federal officials had sought a temporary arrangement under which the disputed ballots would be kept apart from other votes until election administrators could establish whether the individuals involved were legally eligible to participate. The administration argued that such a measure would protect federal election requirements without permanently disqualifying legitimate voters.

California authorities resisted the proposal, maintaining that the federal government’s information contained inaccuracies and that implementing the requested procedures immediately before Election Day would create serious administrative complications.

The controversy arose from a Justice Department review that identified roughly 20,000 individuals on California’s voter rolls whose citizenship information raised questions. Federal officials argued that further examination was necessary to determine whether any noncitizens had improperly registered or participated in federal elections.

Under federal law, only US citizens may vote in federal contests. The Trump administration has made citizenship verification a central component of its election security agenda, arguing that election officials must take additional precautions to prevent unlawful ballots from influencing election results.

During earlier court proceedings, Justice Department attorney Kenneth Kao acknowledged concerns about the accuracy of the government’s information while explaining that federal authorities wanted California officials to assist in checking the registrations.

“That’s a fair statement,” Kao said when questioned about whether the records contained a substantial number of errors.

“That’s why we ask for the registrars’ aid in verifying these are all valid voters,” he added.

Bill Essayli, the federal prosecutor responsible for the Justice Department’s Los Angeles office, defended the investigation at a separate news conference, insisting that the administration had identified legitimate grounds for examining the registrations.

“This isn’t speculation. This isn’t a theory,” Essayli said, although he conceded that some records might be inaccurate.

California, which sends mail-in ballots to approximately 23 million registered voters, began its election process in early October. State officials argued that locating and isolating the ballots associated with the disputed registrations would be extremely difficult because large numbers of votes had already been received and processed.

The Justice Department filed its lawsuit in mid-October after California officials declined to act on the federal list. A federal district judge rejected the administration’s request, warning that a last-minute change to ballot procedures could disrupt the election and undermine confidence in the counting process.

A divided federal appeals court subsequently upheld the refusal to intervene. Two judges declined to grant the administration’s request, while a third, appointed by Trump, dissented and argued that California’s position risked encouraging the “violation of federal law.”

Additional questions have emerged about the reliability of the federal government’s list. Researchers examining the records reported that roughly 9,000 names, representing more than 40% of those identified, did not appear on California’s voter rolls. They also identified entries that appeared to correspond to American citizens, raising further concerns about the accuracy of the information used to challenge the registrations.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision, writing that the justices had rejected the emergency application without requesting a response from the state. “Democracy won,” he declared.

In a separate legal proceeding Monday, US District Chief Judge James Boasberg in Washington concluded that certain Justice Department demands directed at California election authorities likely exceeded the federal executive branch’s constitutional powers.

“The Executive Branch has likely violated the Constitution’s Elections Clause, which commits authority over election rules to the states and Congress alone,” Boasberg wrote.

The Supreme Court’s action does not constitute a final ruling on the legality of the disputed registrations or establish that every individual on the government’s list is eligible to vote. Rather, it leaves existing election procedures intact while the underlying litigation continues.

With millions of Californians having already submitted their ballots, the decision allows state election administrators to proceed without the special segregation process sought by the Trump administration as voters cast their final ballots Tuesday.

{Matzav.com}

LISTEN:

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

LISTEN:

Shas is confronting a serious political crisis after losing nearly 100,000 votes in Israel’s latest Knesset elections, with former party spokesman Itzik Sudri warning that the party has alienated both its chareidi and traditional Sephardic constituencies. According to Sudri, approximately 30,000 chareidi voters abandoned Shas for United Torah Judaism, while another 70,000 traditional voters turned elsewhere, leaving the party struggling to reconcile the competing expectations of its supporters.

The election results saw Shas fall to six Knesset seats, securing 299,506 votes, while United Torah Judaism emerged with seven mandates. The outcome has prompted difficult questions about the future direction of the Sephardic chareidi party and the political strategy pursued by chairman Aryeh Deri.

Speaking with Avi Mimran on Kol Chai Radio’s central news broadcast, Sudri, who previously served as Shas spokesman and currently works as a commentator on chareidi affairs for Channel 16, offered an explanation for the party’s dramatic electoral decline.

“30,000 chareidim voted for United Torah Judaism, more or less, looking for the more chareidi option, while 70,000 traditional voters looked for the more traditional side,” Sudri said.

His assessment suggests that Shas has found itself caught between two distinct groups of supporters, each increasingly dissatisfied with the party for opposite reasons. Chareidi voters, he argued, felt Shas had failed to maintain a sufficiently strong chareidi identity, while traditional Sephardic voters believed the party had moved too far toward the chareidi sector at the expense of their own concerns.

Unlike United Torah Judaism, whose electorate consists overwhelmingly of chareidi voters, Shas has historically attracted a broad coalition of Sephardic chareidim, yeshiva graduates, baalei teshuvah, and traditional Jews. That diverse electoral base helped establish Shas as a major political force, but Sudri believes the party has struggled to maintain the delicate balance necessary to retain those voters.

He attributed part of the decline to Shas’ close political identification with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, as well as growing public criticism of the chareidi community and the party’s difficulty presenting a clear position on the military draft controversy.

Sudri was particularly critical of the party’s public messaging concerning the status of yeshiva bochurim and avreichim, arguing that Shas failed to communicate a coherent position during a campaign dominated by the conscription debate.

“At best, it remained silent,” he said.

According to Sudri, the party’s handling of the issue created difficulties among traditional Sephardic supporters, many of whom have children serving in the IDF and felt increasingly uncomfortable with rhetoric they perceived as dismissive of military service.

“The traditional Shas voter, whose children, as he says, are in the army, hears constant disparagement of those serving in the military, and he says: I want to vote for a party where I’m a first-class citizen, not a second-class citizen,” Sudri explained.

At the same time, he suggested that more strongly chareidi voters were drawn toward United Torah Judaism, which they regarded as taking a firmer position on issues affecting the Torah community.

Despite the substantial losses, Sudri emphasized that Shas continues to represent both sectors. He estimated that approximately 200,000 Sephardic chareidim and 100,000 traditional voters supported the party in the latest election, demonstrating that its original electoral coalition has not disappeared entirely.

Sudri also expressed confidence that Deri, who has yet to deliver an extensive public assessment of the election results, remains the person best equipped to rebuild Shas and restore its political strength.

“The very person who is truly best suited to restore the glory of Shas, to return the crown to its former glory, is Aryeh Deri,” he said.

He explained that Deri’s longstanding familiarity with the different communities that make up the Shas electorate gives him a unique ability to reconnect with voters who have drifted away from the party.

Sudri maintained that resolving the military draft controversy will be essential to repairing the divisions within the Shas electorate and restoring confidence among both chareidi and traditional supporters.

While acknowledging the severity of the setback, he cautioned against dismissing the party’s remaining electoral strength, describing its ability to retain six Knesset seats after such a difficult campaign as an achievement in its own right.

{Matzav.com}

Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Police Commissioner Daniel Levy are locked in an extraordinary public confrontation over allegations that the police chief personally ordered officers to use excessive force against chareidi demonstrators protesting military conscription. The dispute escalated Monday after the Israel Police issued a blistering statement rejecting Ben Gvir’s accusations, while the minister stood by his claims that Levy had instructed officers to use batons and stun grenades against protesters.

The police response followed an urgent petition submitted by Ben Gvir to Israel’s High Court of Justice, seeking the removal of an interim order restricting his involvement in police operational instructions concerning demonstrations. In the court filing, the minister alleged that Levy had personally directed officers to intensify their use of force against chareidi protesters, even before disturbances had begun.

In a statement issued through its spokesperson’s office, the Israel Police categorically rejected the accusation that Levy had ordered violence against demonstrators for improper reasons or in violation of police regulations.

“The claim that Police Commissioner Daniel Levy instructed officers to use violence against chareidi protesters for improper motives or contrary to the law and regulations is baseless, completely unfounded and outrageous,” the police statement declared.

Ben Gvir’s office responded immediately, insisting that the minister had no intention of retracting his accusations and providing additional details about the conduct he attributed to the commissioner.

“The minister stands behind everything he said. Police Commissioner Daniel Levy ordered police forces to use severe and increased violence against chareidi demonstrators, and was even quoted as saying, ‘I want to see blood.’ The commissioner personally approached officers and district commanders in the field and instructed them to use batons against protesters. In addition, he removed district commanders from their positions unlawfully and without the minister’s approval, and even traveled abroad and remains there at this moment without obtaining the minister’s authorization,” Ben Gvir’s office stated.

The minister’s representatives further accused Levy of allowing political considerations to influence his decisions following the recent Knesset elections.

“The minister appreciates and supports the officers of the Israel Police, but direct responsibility for what is happening rests with the commissioner, who, from the moment the election results became known, decided to curry favor with Yair Golan, Yoav Segalovitz and Ra’am,” the statement continued.

Police officials responded by describing the minister’s allegations as “serious, delusional and disgraceful,” accusing him of attacking the very institution he is responsible for overseeing.

The police said Ben Gvir’s accusations “cross every line, particularly coming from the minister responsible for the police, who, instead of supporting its officers and commanders, chooses to malign them, cast doubt on their professionalism and damage public confidence in those entrusted with their security.”

At the center of the controversy is Ben Gvir’s request that the High Court lift restrictions preventing him from intervening in operational decisions concerning protests. The minister contends that those restrictions have prevented him from exercising appropriate oversight while police commanders have allegedly authorized increasingly aggressive tactics against chareidi demonstrators.

In his submission, Ben Gvir alleged that Levy had contacted commanders directly and ordered them to deploy batons and stun grenades before protesters had engaged in public disturbances. Those allegations have been firmly denied by the police.

The police spokesperson’s office emphasized that accusations of deliberate violence against civilians represent a particularly serious attack on the integrity of the country’s law enforcement personnel.

“The attempt to attribute to the commissioner and police commanders a deliberate intention to harm civilians is especially serious and constitutes a direct attack on the thousands of police officers, Border Police and National Guard personnel, and volunteers who work day and night with dedication and self-sacrifice for public safety and security,” the statement said.

Police leadership also rejected suggestions that operational decisions were being influenced by political loyalties.

“The Israel Police is not a tool for political attacks. The commissioner, police commanders and officers will continue to act with impartiality, professionalism and in accordance with the laws of the State of Israel, without fear or favoritism,” the statement declared.

The department added that “no attempt to malign the police or its leadership will divert them from their mission and their unwavering commitment to the security of Israel’s citizens.”

It further maintained that “the Israel Police is an apolitical police force that carries out its duties equally for all Israeli citizens. That is how it has acted, and that is how it will continue to act.”

In an unusually direct appeal to the minister, police leadership concluded by demanding that Ben Gvir withdraw his accusations.

“Retract the statement that harms all members of the Israel Police, and the sooner the better,” the statement said.

The confrontation follows disturbing scenes at recent anti-draft demonstrations, particularly near the Geha-Jabotinsky intersection at the entrance to Bnei Brak, where video footage showed police throwing stun grenades toward groups of chareidi protesters and using batons and kicks during confrontations.

Those incidents have generated criticism of police conduct, including from individuals described in Israeli media reports as police insiders.

In recent days, sources within the police were quoted as saying that “the commissioner has completely lost control of the police,” reflecting concern over the handling of demonstrations and the growing controversy surrounding the use of force.

{Matzav.com}

Senior Shas lawmakers began a series of consultations with the party’s leading rabbonim Monday evening to determine whom the party will recommend to President Isaac Herzog to form Israel’s next government, with discussions also expected to address the possibility of replacing the Knesset speaker. Notably, Shas chairman Aryeh Deri did not participate in the visits.

The consultations mark the first formal meetings between Shas representatives and the party’s senior spiritual leadership since the results of last week’s Knesset elections were announced, as political parties prepare to submit their recommendations to the president regarding the formation of the next coalition.

Shas MKs Michael Malkieli and Yinon Azoulay visited the home of Harav Moshe Maya, the senior member of the Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah, to seek his guidance on the party’s position ahead of the presidential consultations.

Among the issues expected to be discussed is the identity of the candidate Shas will support for prime minister, a decision that could carry considerable weight as the various political factions maneuver to determine who will receive the mandate to establish a government.

Another matter reportedly under consideration is whether Shas should support replacing the current Knesset speaker, a potentially significant move as negotiations begin over the leadership and composition of the next Knesset.

Following their meeting with Rav Maya, the Shas representatives were scheduled to visit Harav Yitzchak Yosef, the party’s spiritual leader, as well as additional members of the Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah, before a final decision is announced.

The absence of Deri, who has long served as the dominant political figure within Shas, drew attention as the party embarked on discussions concerning some of the most consequential decisions of the post-election period. No explanation for his absence was provided in the report.

An official statement issued following the initial visit confirmed that the party’s representatives were seeking guidance from the rabbinic leadership before making any formal recommendation to the president.

“Shas Knesset members Michael Malkieli and Yinon Azoulay entered the residence of the senior member of the Council of Torah Sages, Maran Hagaon Harav Moshe Maya, this evening for consultation and to receive his guidance regarding the Shas faction’s recommendation to the president on the candidate to form the government. They will subsequently consult with the remaining members of the Council of Torah Sages, after which the Council’s decision will be announced,” the statement said.

{Matzav.com}

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Governor Kathy Hochul issued strong condemnations Monday after four buses used to transport Jewish schoolchildren in Brooklyn were defaced with swastikas and antisemitic messages, prompting demands for the perpetrators to be arrested and prosecuted.

The vandalism occurred in South Williamsburg, home to a large chassidishe community, where the discovery of the hateful markings on school buses raised fresh concerns about antisemitism directed at Jewish children and families.

“The antisemitic vandalism targeting school buses in South Williamsburg is abhorrent. Every New Yorker – especially our children – deserves to live free of such hatred,” Mamdani said in a statement.

{Matzav.com}

A unique event took place in New Square, New York, where the small electric vehicle used by the Skverer Rebbe was fitted with a specially developed internet filtering system and received certification from the Skver community’s L’Taher organization, which works to protect the community from the dangers of unfiltered technology.

According to sources, the vehicle is used regularly by the Rebbe to make it easier for him to travel between his home, the main bais medrash, and other locations throughout New Square.

Because modern electric vehicles can contain sophisticated electronic systems with internet connectivity and the ability to communicate with other technological devices, community representatives sought to ensure that the Rebbe’s vehicle would be completely protected from such connections.

Activists associated with L’Taher, an organization operating within the Skverer chassidus to promote strict safeguards against inappropriate technology, developed a customized filtering solution designed to prevent internet access through the vehicle’s electronic systems.

The new system was installed last week in the personal presence of the Skverer Rebbe, who has long been at the forefront of efforts within his community to maintain strict standards regarding internet use and modern technological devices.

Following the installation, the vehicle received the organization’s official approval, confirming that the necessary safeguards had been implemented to prevent unwanted internet connectivity.

{Matzav.com}