Feed aggregator

Former FBI Director James Comey is facing a third federal criminal case brought by prosecutors under President Donald Trump’s administration, this time involving allegations of transmitting national defense information and conspiring to transmit such information.

The latest case, which reportedly remained under seal beginning October 5, represents another major legal development involving Comey, whose relationship with President Trump has been marked by years of public confrontation over the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

According to NBC News, federal prosecutors have charged Comey with transmission of national defense information and conspiracy to transmit national defense information. However, the report states that Comey has not been indicted in the latest proceeding, leaving questions about the precise procedural status of the case.

The distinction is significant because a federal criminal charge does not necessarily originate with a grand jury indictment. The report does not specify whether prosecutors filed a criminal complaint or another charging document, nor does it identify the particular national defense information allegedly involved.

The development comes after two earlier federal prosecutions of Comey during Trump’s second term.

The first case, filed in September 2025, accused Comey of making a false statement to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding. Comey pleaded not guilty, and a federal judge dismissed the indictment in November after determining that the prosecutor who brought the case, Lindsey Halligan, had been unlawfully appointed.

The second prosecution followed in April 2026, when a federal grand jury in North Carolina indicted Comey over an Instagram photograph showing seashells arranged to form the numbers “86 47.”

Prosecutors alleged that the image constituted a threat against President Trump, the nation’s 47th president. Comey disputed that interpretation, maintained his innocence, and sought dismissal of the charges. That case remained pending as of the latest reporting.

Comey, who served as FBI director from 2013 until Trump dismissed him in May 2017, has been one of the president’s most prominent adversaries.

His tenure became the subject of intense political controversy after the FBI opened its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and possible connections between Russian operatives and individuals associated with Trump’s campaign.

Trump has repeatedly criticized Comey’s conduct, accusing him of dishonesty and misconduct. Comey has denied criminal wrongdoing and challenged the legitimacy of the prosecutions brought against him.

The latest case adds a new dimension to that long-running confrontation because it involves alleged national security offenses rather than congressional testimony or social media statements.

In a video posted to Instagram following reports of the new case, Comey responded to the latest development by saying, “they’re back again.”

He also reiterated his denial of wrongdoing, declaring, “I’m still innocent.”

The announcement coincided with a separate legal development involving Comey’s daughter, Maurene Comey, a former federal prosecutor in Manhattan.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman ruled that the Trump administration had unlawfully dismissed Maurene Comey from her position in July 2025. The judge ordered relief that would entitle her to back pay and retroactive reinstatement, although additional legal issues remain unresolved.

The Justice Department disputed that ruling and indicated that it intends to appeal.

Meanwhile, significant questions remain about the new national defense information case against James Comey, including the nature of the allegedly transmitted material, the circumstances of its disclosure, and whether prosecutors will seek a grand jury indictment.

No conviction has been reported in any of the three cases, and Comey continues to maintain his innocence.

The new prosecution represents the latest escalation in a legal confrontation that has continued for nearly a decade, with the former FBI director once again facing allegations from the Justice Department under the president who removed him from office in 2017.

{Matzav.com}

A major controversy has erupted in the American polling industry after an organization calling itself Wedgewood Polls acknowledged that much of its election polling data had been invented, despite the figures having been circulated by news organizations and incorporated into prominent election-tracking databases. The New York Times has responded by removing 15 polls attributed to the operation.

The disclosures have raised questions about the safeguards used to verify polling results before they are published and incorporated into political analysis, particularly with the November 3 midterm elections approaching.

According to a report in Israel Hayom by U.S. correspondent Or Shaked, the New York Times removed 15 Wedgewood surveys conducted between June and October after those behind the operation admitted that the numbers were largely fabricated.

The individuals responsible described their activities as an “experimental project” intended to demonstrate weaknesses in the polling industry and expose how easily invented statistics could enter widely used election databases without adequate verification.

The consequences may have extended beyond inaccurate polling averages. One of the candidates reportedly affected was Mallory McMorrow, whose campaign for the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination in Michigan suffered after a Wedgewood survey placed her support at just 9%.

McMorrow subsequently withdrew from the primary contest. According to the report, the damaging poll contributed to a collapse in confidence surrounding her candidacy, affecting fundraising, volunteer morale, and media perceptions of her prospects.

“The donations dried up, the volunteers were devastated, and journalists demanded that I withdraw,” McMorrow said, describing the effect of the misleading numbers on her campaign.

The operation began unraveling when the election-analysis website FiftyPlusOne examined the underlying polling data and identified discrepancies that called the authenticity of the surveys into question.

The findings eventually led to the admission that much of Wedgewood’s reported research had been manufactured rather than obtained through legitimate polling.

The controversy is particularly troubling because the fabricated surveys had already found their way into established media outlets and polling databases, giving the figures an appearance of credibility that they had not earned.

The Wedgewood revelations also follow another polling fabrication incident uncovered in August, when a separate operation acknowledged publishing invented survey results as part of a similar experiment examining weaknesses in the industry’s verification procedures.

The latest disclosure has drawn a reaction from President Donald Trump, who used the controversy to attack the New York Times.

“The New York Times was caught! Everything about this failing newspaper is artificial,” Trump wrote on social media, according to the Hebrew report.

The incident has renewed scrutiny of how polling organizations establish their legitimacy, how media outlets evaluate survey methodologies, and whether election databases sufficiently distinguish established research firms from newly created operations with little verifiable track record.

Additional details have emerged about the scale of the deception and the investigation that exposed it.

Wedgewood began releasing surveys in June and presented itself as a professional polling organization. Its purported research covered competitive races across the country, including Senate and gubernatorial contests in Michigan and Mississippi.

One particularly consequential survey, released June 29, showed McMorrow receiving only 9% support in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary, compared with 46% for Abdul El-Sayed and 39% for Haley Stevens. McMorrow ended her campaign six days later, on July 5.

“It killed us,” McMorrow said of the impact the fabricated poll had on her campaign.

Jennifer Holdsworth, a Democratic strategist who led a political action committee supporting McMorrow, said some donors specifically cited the Wedgewood survey when explaining their decisions to withdraw financial support. Other legitimate polls also showed McMorrow trailing, however, making it impossible to determine precisely how much the fabricated survey contributed to her withdrawal.

The investigation that exposed Wedgewood centered on a survey in Mississippi’s U.S. Senate race. The company had published figures showing Republican Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith leading Democrat Scott Colom by just four percentage points, 52% to 48%.

Researchers at FiftyPlusOne requested the underlying survey responses and compared them with results from an independently conducted poll using the same online platform, Pollfish.

The examination uncovered irregularities involving respondent identification numbers and timestamps. Those discrepancies raised doubts about whether the supposed survey responses had actually been collected.

After investigators contacted Wedgewood on October 20, the organization publicly acknowledged that most of its polling results were fictitious.

The company claimed that its operation was designed to expose how easily fabricated polling could influence political coverage.

The New York Times subsequently removed 15 Wedgewood surveys from its election database, while Decision Desk HQ deleted 17 polls from its own listings and averages. Other election-analysis organizations also removed the company’s figures.

The Times said it had questioned Wedgewood about its personnel, methodology, and funding before accepting its surveys. FiftyPlusOne likewise maintained that it had attempted to verify the organization’s legitimacy, including examining its stated research methods and the professional background of one individual identified as a pollster.

The controversy has also attracted the attention of Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr, who warned broadcasters about disseminating fabricated election polling. Democratic FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez challenged the suggestion that stations could face regulatory consequences merely for reporting polling information they believed to be legitimate.

The scandal follows an earlier case involving Median Strategies, another purported polling organization that admitted in August to publishing fabricated election surveys as a claimed experiment.

{Matzav.com}

Democratic leaders are preparing to launch an aggressive effort to remove War Secretary Pete Hegseth if their party captures control of the House of Representatives in next week’s midterm elections, with senior lawmakers openly threatening investigations, congressional subpoenas, and possible impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump’s Pentagon chief.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York and Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado have identified Hegseth as a major target should Democrats regain the majority on November 3. Their statements suggest that the party intends to use its congressional authority to challenge the administration’s military leadership almost immediately after taking control.

“One of the first things we’re going to do in the majority, we’re going to run Pete Hegseth out of town,” Jeffries declared during a recent campaign appearance.

Jeffries reinforced that warning on Sunday, making clear that he believes Trump should remove Hegseth himself rather than leave the matter to a Democratic-controlled Congress.

“Pete Hegseth needs to be pushed aside by the president, or we’re going to have to deal with that situation if he is not,” Jeffries said.

Crow, who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, delivered a similar message during an appearance Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” He described Hegseth’s removal as his “priority No. 1” if Democrats succeed in taking back the House.

The public warnings indicate that Hegseth could face extensive congressional scrutiny under a Democratic majority, including demands for internal Defense Department documents, testimony from senior military officials, investigative hearings, and efforts to begin impeachment proceedings.

Democratic criticism of Hegseth has intensified over his management of the Pentagon, his role in military operations involving Iran, and decisions affecting personnel throughout the armed forces.

Rep. Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico has gone so far as to argue that impeaching Hegseth should be among the three highest priorities for House Democrats. Other members of the party have expressed support for a more confrontational approach to overseeing the Pentagon.

The campaign against Hegseth could also attract backing from outside the Democratic Party. Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky filed eight articles of impeachment against the secretary in September, alleging that he had exceeded constitutional limits on military action and approved operations that violated congressional war powers.

Although Democrats would need only a simple majority in the House to approve articles of impeachment, that step would not automatically remove Hegseth from office. Conviction in the Senate would require support from two-thirds of senators, making his actual removal considerably more difficult.

The White House has rejected the effort to force Hegseth out, defending his leadership and accusing Democrats of using impeachment threats for partisan purposes.

White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers characterized the campaign as a “sham attempt” to damage Republicans and praised Hegseth for his efforts to rebuild the military and strengthen America’s defense capabilities.

For Trump, the prospect of losing the House would mean that one of his most prominent Cabinet officials could face a sustained confrontation with congressional investigators, potentially diverting significant attention from the administration’s defense agenda.

The increasingly explicit threats against Hegseth also provide an early indication of how Democrats intend to exercise their authority if voters return them to power in the House, with the Pentagon chief emerging as one of their first potential impeachment targets.

The impeachment threat is already taking shape on Capitol Hill. Massie’s eight articles, introduced on September 15, accuse Hegseth of violating the War Powers Resolution during the conflict with Iran, among other alleged abuses of authority. The Kentucky Republican also raised objections to military operations involving Yemen and Venezuela, as well as the Pentagon’s handling of certain constitutional protections.

Massie’s resolution was introduced as a privileged matter, a procedure that can force the House to address it. However, Republican leaders ended the September legislative session without holding a vote, leaving the matter unresolved as lawmakers headed into the election recess.

The House is scheduled to return on November 9, when the impeachment effort could resurface regardless of which party wins the elections. Any newly elected Democratic majority would not take office until January, but the existing resolution could bring the controversy back before Congress much sooner.

Crow’s Sunday remarks came during a discussion of intelligence indicating that Iran had intensified efforts to target American personnel. The Colorado Democrat accused Hegseth of failing to provide adequate protection for U.S. service members and argued that the Pentagon needed different leadership.

Crow also criticized the administration’s dealings with Russia, accusing Moscow of assisting Iran and arguing that Trump’s diplomatic and sanctions policies were making American troops more vulnerable. Those allegations reflect the Democrats’ broader criticism of the administration’s handling of the Iran conflict.

The Pentagon has defended Hegseth’s record and rejected the allegations underlying the impeachment campaign. Administration officials maintain that the secretary has strengthened military readiness and advanced Trump’s national security priorities.

With the elections approaching, the battle over Hegseth is emerging as a preview of the political confrontation that could unfold in Washington next year. Democrats are promising to use congressional power against the Pentagon chief, while the White House is standing behind him and portraying the effort as a politically motivated attack on the president’s administration.

{Matzav.com}

Newly released footage shows Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir warning about Hamas’s expanding military capabilities and urging a more aggressive response to the terrorist organization just three days before the October 7, 2023, massacre.

The video, made public Monday by Ben Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit party, documents a visit the minister made to Kibbutz Nahal Oz on October 4, 2023. During the visit, he spoke with local security coordinators about the growing danger from Gaza and criticized the Israeli government’s longstanding approach of attempting to contain Hamas rather than confronting it militarily.

The conversation was recorded at 4:26 p.m., with the Gaza Strip visible behind the participants. In a tragic development, both security coordinators who took part in the discussion became victims of the Hamas assault three days later. One was murdered during the attack, while the other sustained serious injuries.

The footage captures Ben Gvir openly discussing differences within the Israeli government over how to respond to Hamas. He argued that the prevailing preference among government officials was to avoid a major military confrontation, even though delaying such a conflict would allow Hamas to accumulate more weapons and become a substantially greater threat.

“A large part of the government wants to avoid a conflict,” he said. “I’m actually one of those who believe we need to confront them, because if we don’t confront them today, we’ll confront them in 10 or 15 years, when they’ll have ten times as many rockets, ten times as much ammunition, and ten times as much power,” the minister said.

Ben Gvir also addressed the security situation along the Gaza border fence, where violent disturbances and attempts to approach the barrier had prompted disagreements over the appropriate response by Israeli forces.

Speaking during Chol Hamoed Sukkos, the minister said he had been challenging senior military officials, including the IDF chief of staff, over the rules governing the use of force against individuals approaching the border.

“I think that even now, during Sukkot, when they approach the fence, and this is something I’m arguing about with the Chief of Staff and security officials, I don’t want to go into too much detail because there are many discussions about it, but I’m one of those who believe we shouldn’t contain them,” he said.

The minister went further, arguing that Israeli forces should be authorized to use live ammunition against individuals approaching the security barrier with the intention of attacking Israel, rather than relying on less-lethal crowd-control measures.

“If they approach the fence and try to harm the State of Israel, we shouldn’t throw gas at them; we should shoot them. Because in any normal country, when someone approaches your fence and wants to destroy the country, you shoot to kill him,” he said.

The timing of the recording gives the remarks particular significance. On October 7, Hamas terrorists launched a massive assault from Gaza, overrunning Israeli border defenses and attacking communities and military installations across southern Israel.

Nahal Oz was among the communities devastated during the invasion, with residents and security personnel facing heavily armed terrorists who penetrated the kibbutz and surrounding military positions.

The footage demonstrates that Ben Gvir had publicly advocated a more confrontational policy toward Hamas immediately before the attack. It does not, however, establish that he had advance knowledge of the specific operation Hamas was preparing.

The decision by Otzma Yehudit to release the recording comes amid continuing debate in Israel over the security failures that preceded October 7 and the responsibility of political and military leaders for the policies followed in the years leading up to the massacre.

The video has also become part of Otzma Yehudit’s election campaign, with the party presenting it as evidence that Ben Gvir had challenged the government’s approach to Hamas before the massacre, rather than adopting a tougher position only after the attack.

In a statement accompanying the recording, the party went further, claiming that the disaster could have been prevented had Ben Gvir been responsible for Israel’s defense establishment.

“If Ben Gvir had been Defense Minister, October 7 would not have happened!” the party declared.

Ben Gvir also shared the footage on social media, drawing attention to the date, location, and precise time of the conversation. He pointed to the fate of the two security coordinators and suggested that the warnings he delivered that afternoon should have been taken more seriously.

The release comes one day before Israel’s October 27 Knesset elections, in which Otzma Yehudit is seeking to strengthen its representation and Ben Gvir has expressed ambitions to become defense minister.

Recent polling has suggested that his party could secure at least eight Knesset seats, making it a potentially important participant in negotiations over the formation of the next government.

The Satmar community in Eretz Yisroel is mourning the passing of Rav Chaim Shalom Klein zt”l, one of the senior rabbonim of the Satmar kehillah in Bnei Brak and a distinguished marbitz Torah for many decades. He was niftar on Monday at Sheba Medical Center in Tel Hashomer at the age of 90.

Rav Klein was among the elder and most respected figures of the Satmar community in Bnei Brak, having devoted much of his life to teaching Torah and guiding generations of talmidim. His passing marks the loss of a link to an earlier generation of Torah giants and the formative years of the Satmar community in Eretz Yisroel.

Born on 19 Tishrei 5697 (1936) in Timisoara, Romania, known in Jewish circles as Temeshvar, Rav Klein was the son of Rav Yisroel Klein zt”l, a distinguished Sighet chossid, and Mrs. Liba Klein a”h.

Following the devastation of World War II, he immigrated to Eretz Yisroel with his family, where he continued his Torah education and eventually became a prominent figure in the growing Torah community of Bnei Brak.

As a young bochur, he entered Yeshivas Chachmei Lublin in Bnei Brak, where he distinguished himself through his extraordinary diligence in learning and his dedication to Torah and yiras Shomayim.

During those years, he developed a particularly close relationship with Rav Shmuel Halevi Wosner zt”l, the renowned author of Shevet Halevi, becoming one of his outstanding talmidim.

His abilities as a Torah scholar and teacher were recognized at an unusually young age. While still a chosson, Rav Klein was appointed to deliver shiurim at the Satmar yeshiva in Bnei Brak during the institution’s very first year of operation.

That appointment marked the beginning of a remarkable career in harbotzas haTorah that would continue for decades.

Over the years, Rav Klein taught and influenced countless talmidim, many of whom went on to become accomplished talmidei chachomim, rabbonim, and dayonim. Among his students were individuals who eventually assumed positions of Torah leadership within Satmar communities in both New York and Eretz Yisroel.

In addition to his responsibilities in the yeshiva, he regularly delivered shiurim at the Satmar Bais Medrash Hagadol in Bnei Brak’s Kiryas Satmar neighborhood, where he was regarded as one of the senior rabbonim and elder members of the kehillah.

His Torah knowledge and personal connection to leading gedolei Yisroel extended back to his youth.

During his years as a bochur, Rav Klein merited to spend time in the presence of the Belzer Rebbe, Rav Aharon Rokeach zy”a. He also had the privilege of engaging in lengthy Torah discussions with the Chazon Ish zy”a, experiences that remained part of his connection to the great Torah personalities of the previous generation.

Throughout his life, Rav Klein maintained an exceptionally strong attachment to the Satmar Rebbes.

He was deeply devoted to the Divrei Yoel, Rav Yoel Teitelbaum zy”a, and subsequently maintained a close relationship with his successor, the Berach Moshe, Rav Moshe Teitelbaum zy”a.

In more recent years, he enjoyed a particularly warm relationship with the Satmar Rebbe, Rav Aharon Teitelbaum, who held him in great esteem and accorded him exceptional honor.

Rav Klein’s longstanding service to the Satmar kehillah, together with his decades of Torah teaching, made him a highly respected figure among the community’s rabbonim and chassidim.

He leaves behind a large family of sons, daughters, sons-in-law, grandchildren, and further descendants who continue in the path of Torah and Chassidus.

The levaya is scheduled for Monday evening, at 10:30 p.m., departing from the Satmar Bais Medrash Hagadol, Kahal Yetev Lev, at 22 Yismach Moshe Street in Kiryas Satmar, Bnei Brak.

The procession was to continue to the Ponevezh Cemetery in Bnei Brak, where Rav Klein would be laid to rest.

Yehi zichro boruch.

{Matzav.com}

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has rejected a CNN report alleging that he sought President Donald Trump’s approval for a joint American-Israeli military operation against Iran ahead of Israel’s elections but was turned down by the White House.

The Prime Minister’s Office dismissed the report as “Fake news,” rejecting claims that Netanyahu had attempted to persuade Trump to authorize another round of military strikes against the Islamic Republic before Israeli voters head to the polls.

According to CNN, which cited an Israeli security source and two American officials, Netanyahu had pressed for a coordinated attack involving both countries. The report claimed that American officials were unwilling to proceed on Netanyahu’s proposed timetable and instead wanted Israel to wait until the Trump administration was prepared to conduct joint operations.

“Netanyahu really wanted and tried to convince Trump for a joint attack in Iran before the elections, and Trump did not give a green light,” the Israeli security source alleged to CNN.

The allegations emerged amid heightened attention to Israel’s military posture toward Iran and questions about whether the Israeli government was considering additional action against Tehran in the period immediately preceding the Knesset elections.

The report also followed separate claims of disagreements between Israel’s political leadership and senior military officials over the handling of the Iranian threat, allegations that Defense Minister Yisrael Katz forcefully rejected earlier Monday.

Katz denied that Israel had been preparing a preemptive strike against Iran before the elections and insisted that there was no rift between the government and the Israel Defense Forces regarding the country’s security strategy.

“The reports of disagreements between the political leadership and the IDF regarding Iran are completely baseless and false,” Katz declared.

The defense minister said that relations between Netanyahu, the Defense Ministry, and the IDF leadership have been characterized by close cooperation, particularly on matters involving Iran.

According to Katz, that coordination has continued throughout his tenure and has contributed to important Israeli security accomplishments.

He rejected suggestions that political considerations, including the approaching elections, were influencing decisions about possible military action.

Katz maintained that Israel’s policy toward Iran is determined exclusively by national security requirements and operational considerations, rather than electoral calculations.

“That is the only consideration – and it will remain this way in the future as well,” he stressed.

The competing accounts have placed renewed attention on the relationship between Netanyahu and Trump, particularly regarding their coordination on Iran and the circumstances under which Washington might participate in another military operation.

CNN’s account suggested that the disagreement concerned the timing of a possible joint strike, with American officials reportedly preferring to delay any operation until the administration was fully prepared.

Netanyahu’s office, however, rejected the central allegation that he had sought approval for a pre-election attack and been refused.

The denials from Netanyahu and Katz come as Iran remains a major security concern for Israel, with the country’s nuclear activities, missile capabilities, and regional military relationships continuing to shape Israeli defense planning.

The possibility of further military action has also become a subject of political debate in Israel, where the approaching elections have intensified scrutiny of the government’s security decisions.

For now, the CNN allegations remain disputed, with the Israeli government rejecting the reported account of Netanyahu’s discussions with Trump and the defense minister denying that any pre-election strike had been planned.

CNN’s broader investigation, published Sunday night, also reported that American military forces stationed in the Middle East are capable of launching a substantial new offensive against Iran within 96 hours of receiving an order from Trump.

Two American officials told the network that sufficient military assets are already positioned in the region for operations considerably more extensive than the limited strikes carried out against Iranian missile launchers, radar installations, and other military infrastructure in recent months.

According to the report, Pentagon and U.S. Central Command planners have developed potential target lists that include Iranian military facilities, nuclear installations, and energy infrastructure.

One American official described the potential operation as a major undertaking, although Trump has not made a final decision to authorize additional strikes.

CNN further reported that IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir had warned Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, that an attack immediately before Israel’s elections could force the vote to be postponed.

According to the Israeli security source cited by CNN, that warning was among the considerations behind Trump’s reported refusal to approve an immediate operation.

Another source familiar with the discussions claimed that Israel had been seeking American support for additional strikes during the preceding week, but Washington urged Israeli officials to delay military action until both countries could coordinate their plans.

American officials reportedly indicated that joint operations could take place at a later date, potentially after the November 3 U.S. midterm elections.

“The plans are ready, waiting for Trump’s approval, could be after the midterms,” a source familiar with the preparations told CNN.

The report also suggested that Israel’s willingness to delay military action was influenced by its dependence on American missile-defense assistance. Israeli defense officials are reportedly concerned that renewed attacks on Iran could provoke missile retaliation from Tehran and the Houthis in Yemen, placing additional pressure on Israel’s defensive systems.

Separately, Israel’s Channel 12 reported Sunday that Netanyahu and Zamir had clashed over an instruction involving Iran that military officials feared could lead to an immediate escalation. Netanyahu rejected that account, while Katz dismissed allegations of disagreements between the political and military leadership.

Opposition figures have called for greater scrutiny of the reported developments, arguing that decisions involving the possibility of a major regional conflict must remain separate from electoral considerations. The government maintains that its security decisions are based exclusively on Israel’s defense requirements.

Meanwhile, Trump addressed the possibility of further action against Iran during an appearance on Fox News, indicating that he was weighing continued diplomacy against a more forceful military approach.

“Now my question is: Do I make a deal with them or do I finish them off?” Trump said. “It’s the only question. Do I make a deal or do I finish them off?”

The Pentagon declined to discuss specific operational plans, while emphasizing that military planners routinely prepare options for presidential consideration.

“The Department is a planning organization, and its job is to develop and execute military options ordered by the President,” a senior Pentagon official said.

President Donald Trump has launched another blistering attack on Fox News, accusing the cable network of giving Democratic candidates excessive exposure while sidelining Republicans, and warning that its coverage could be responsible for GOP defeats in next month’s congressional midterm elections.

In a Truth Social post, Trump charged that Fox has been providing a platform for Republican opponents while failing to adequately promote GOP candidates, their policies, and the accomplishments of his administration. The president suggested that the network’s editorial decisions are contributing to what he believes should otherwise be a much more favorable political environment for Republicans.

“FoxNews is spending far too much time putting on the OPPONENTS of Republican Party Candidates, people that love our Country, and have Great Policies and Ideas,” Trump wrote.

“These American Patriots are being absolutely ‘blurred out’ by the Media, and Fox is doing little to help. That’s the only reason this Race is close, if it is indeed close.”

The criticism comes as Republicans prepare for the November elections, with control of Congress at stake and Trump increasingly focused on how television networks are presenting the competing parties to voters.

Trump has repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with Fox News despite the network’s longstanding popularity among conservative audiences. His objections have centered on its choice of interview guests, the amount of airtime given to Democrats, and what he considers insufficient attention to Republican campaign events.

At the same time, the president has been directing favorable attention toward Newsmax, a competing conservative cable network.

In another Truth Social message Sunday, Trump singled out Newsmax weekend host Rob Carson for praise, offering an enthusiastic endorsement of his program.

“Rob Carson’s WHAT IN THE WORLD, on NEWSMAX, is very cool. A certain street smarts quality about it! Keep pushing Rob!” Trump wrote.

The endorsement adds another dimension to Trump’s increasingly strained relationship with Fox, which has frequently featured prominent members of his administration and Republican allies but has also drawn criticism from the president for interviewing Democratic politicians.

Earlier in October, Trump took issue with Fox’s decision to interview Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic nominee for Michigan’s U.S. Senate seat. The president questioned why the network was offering airtime to a candidate running against Republican interests in one of the country’s closely watched Senate contests.

Trump has also complained that Fox does not provide sufficient coverage of his rallies, arguing that the network frequently overlooks the size of his audiences and the enthusiasm of his supporters while devoting substantial attention to Democratic candidates and commentators.

His criticism has extended to the network’s political analysis and its selection of guests, reflecting a broader disagreement over how Fox should cover the administration and the Republican Party.

The complaints are not limited to Trump himself. White House trade adviser Peter Navarro has become another prominent administration figure publicly challenging Fox’s programming decisions.

Navarro has questioned whether the network is adequately serving its conservative audience and has encouraged administration officials to reconsider appearing on its broadcasts. He has also urged viewers seeking conservative political coverage to turn to Newsmax.

In public comments and media appearances, Navarro has criticized what he regards as excessive negative commentary about Trump on both Fox News and Fox Business.

His objections have focused on the network’s broader editorial approach, rather than any single interview or broadcast.

The dispute has also brought renewed attention to Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo, whose interviews with Trump administration officials and coverage of economic policy have made her a familiar figure among the president’s supporters.

Trump’s latest statements suggest that his dissatisfaction with Fox is becoming part of his broader political messaging as the campaign approaches its final days.

For Newsmax, the president’s repeated praise provides an opportunity to strengthen its standing among conservative viewers at a time when Trump is publicly questioning the network that has traditionally dominated that audience.

The disagreement also reflects Trump’s belief that television coverage can significantly influence the political fortunes of Republican candidates, particularly in competitive congressional races.

With Election Day drawing nearer, the president is placing increasing pressure on Fox to devote more attention to Republican candidates and their policy proposals.

Trump’s warning is that if Republicans suffer unexpected losses in November, he may hold Fox News partly responsible for giving their Democratic opponents too much of the spotlight.

Additional reporting reveals that Trump’s dispute with Fox has gone beyond social media complaints. White House officials contacted the network earlier this month to object to Martha MacCallum’s interview with Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, while Republican operatives had previously expressed concerns that favorable comments by Fox personalities were helping El-Sayed reach conservative voters.

El-Sayed’s campaign even incorporated a favorable remark by Fox host Jesse Watters into a television advertisement. According to advertising data reported earlier this month, the Democrat’s campaign ran 129 commercials on Fox News between October 1 and October 6, approximately twice the number aired on ESPN during the same period.

Fox News has defended its decision to interview candidates from both parties. Network executives have maintained that covering Democratic candidates is part of their journalistic responsibility, even when some viewers or political figures object.

The latest criticism also came only hours after Trump participated in a friendly telephone interview with Larry Kudlow on Fox Business, illustrating the complicated relationship between the president and the network he continues to criticize publicly.

With the November 3 elections now just days away, the dispute has become another point of contention in the final stretch of a campaign that will determine control of both chambers of Congress.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyomin Netanyahu has spoken out against the arrest of chareidi bochurim over their military draft status, describing the arrests as unacceptable and emphasizing the importance of protecting those who devote themselves to limud haTorah.

In an interview with chareidi radio ahead of Tuesday’s Knesset elections, Netanyahu addressed the increasingly contentious draft issue, drawing a distinction between bnei yeshivos who are genuinely learning and young men who are not enrolled in Torah study.

Netanyahu stressed that the Torah world must be preserved, while maintaining that chareidi young men who are not learning in yeshiva should serve in the military.

His remarks come amid mounting tensions over the enforcement of military conscription requirements, with arrests of chareidi draft avoiders generating protests and fierce criticism from rabbonim and chareidi political representatives.

Speaking with Yaki Adamker and Yisrael Cohen on Radio Kol Berama on October 20, Netanyahu said, “This is unacceptable. We must preserve the Torah world because it has preserved us. These arrests are a deliberate attempt to undermine the process of drafting chareidim without coercion.”

He added, “I greatly respect the Torah world, but those who are not learning should go and enlist.”

The interview came amid an uproar over the detention of dozens of Chabad bochurim at Ben Gurion Airport after they returned from a year of learning at 770 Eastern Parkway in New York.

Approximately 42 young men were detained over their military status, prompting criticism from chareidi representatives and members of the Chabad community.

According to reports, the IDF had been aware of the group’s planned arrival and had deployed military police personnel to the airport.

The military maintained that it was enforcing Israel’s conscription laws and that those who had received enlistment orders remained obligated to comply with them.

Chabad representatives, however, argued that many of the young men had intended to arrange their military status and that the detentions were an unnecessarily confrontational way to address the issue.

Netanyahu was also asked about the demand by chareidi parties that legislation protecting bnei yeshivos be enacted before the next government is sworn in.

“I wish we could do that,” he responded. “Will we be able to do it before the government is formed? Who knows? It depends on goodwill, understanding, and cooperation. I know that many in the chareidi community understand that there needs to be a new sharing of the burden.”

The prime minister maintained that his coalition had come close to passing a draft law during the previous Knesset term.

“We were on the verge of passing a real draft law and were short by just one vote,” he claimed.

The precise parliamentary vote to which Netanyahu was referring was not immediately clear.

He expressed confidence that legislation could be advanced during the next Knesset term, arguing that a new arrangement could establish a lasting understanding between the chareidi community and the broader Israeli public.

Netanyahu was also asked directly whether he believes limud haTorah protects Klal Yisroel and the State of Israel.

“What do you mean?” he responded. “It preserved the Jewish people. What preserved us in exile and throughout all these generations? It was Torah learning. We cannot throw away our heritage.”

The prime minister’s comments drew criticism from political opponents, who accused him of seeking to preserve broad military exemptions in order to maintain the support of the chareidi parties.

Gadi Eisenkot, chairman of the Yashar party, portrayed the election as a choice between Netanyahu’s approach to military exemptions and his own proposal for expanded enlistment.

{Matzav.com}

Brazil has been plunged into a new political confrontation after presidential candidate Flávio Bolsonaro rejected the results of Sunday’s election and announced plans to seek their annulment, despite losing to incumbent President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva by more than 4.4 million votes.

Bolsonaro, the son of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, accused the country’s Supreme Court of improperly interfering in the election after a justice ordered polling stations to remain open for an additional two hours. The controversial decision was issued just minutes before voting was scheduled to end, creating confusion across the country and prompting questions about how the extension was implemented.

According to Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court, Lula secured 64,256,232 votes, representing 51.79% of valid ballots, while Bolsonaro received 59,826,041 votes, or 48.21%. The result gives Lula, who is approaching his 81st birthday, a historic fourth term as president.

Bolsonaro refused to acknowledge the outcome, arguing that the last-minute changes to voting procedures had compromised the integrity of the election.

“It is impossible to accept the election results given the circumstances under which these events unfolded. We will take legal action and seek to have the election annulled. We are not here to play games. I will not accept that this rule was changed mid-game – once again – by Lula’s friends on the Supreme Court,” Bolsonaro declared during remarks outside his campaign headquarters in Brasília.

The dispute centers on an emergency order issued by Supreme Court Justice Cristiano Zanin, who directed that voting be extended from 5 p.m. until 7 p.m. following complaints that transportation disruptions and severe weather had prevented some voters from reaching polling stations.

Both presidential campaigns had requested additional voting time, although their requests differed in scope and justification.

Lula’s campaign raised concerns about public transportation problems, particularly in areas of Bahia and São Paulo, where reduced bus service and lengthy delays allegedly made it difficult for residents to vote.

Bolsonaro’s campaign also sought extended voting hours, citing heavy rainfall, flooding, and power outages in several states, including Minas Gerais, Rio Grande do Sul, São Paulo, Paraná, and Santa Catarina.

The controversy arose when Zanin issued a nationwide extension shortly before the scheduled closing time. By the time election officials received the order, some polling stations had already shut their doors, while others remained operational.

Election authorities subsequently clarified that the additional two hours would apply only to polling locations that had not already closed. Ballots from locations where voting had ended would be counted normally.

The conflicting circumstances produced considerable uncertainty, particularly because voters in some areas were permitted additional time while those in other locations were not.

Bolsonaro argued that the inconsistent implementation deprived voters of equal treatment and created circumstances in which the election results could no longer be accepted as legitimate.

“What happened today was not normal. It was, in fact, unacceptable. A Supreme Court justice – for the first time in history, a former lawyer for Lula – signed a decree at the request of a former business partner and changed the rules of the game midway through the game. At 5:01 p.m., Justice Zanin – who is not a member of the Superior Electoral Court – bypassed the specialized electoral court system and decided to extend voting hours by two hours. This had never happened in Brazil’s history. There was a complete breakdown of equality among Brazilians in different cities and states. I’ll never know how many votes I might have received in a state where polling stations weren’t reopened. It’s inexplicable that this actually happened,” Bolsonaro said.

Zanin previously served as Lula’s attorney before being appointed to the Supreme Court, a connection Bolsonaro cited in questioning the justice’s involvement.

The president of Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court, Justice Kassio Nunes Marques, subsequently instructed regional election authorities to implement the extension at polling stations that were still operating.

Vote counting, which had already begun, was temporarily interrupted while the additional voting period continued. The tally resumed after the extended deadline.

However, subsequent reporting indicated that fewer than 35,000 ballots were cast during the additional voting period, a figure dramatically smaller than Lula’s margin of more than four million votes.

That disparity has raised serious questions about whether Bolsonaro’s proposed legal challenge could succeed, even if courts were to examine irregularities surrounding the voting extension.

Election officials have maintained that the additional voting period did not change the outcome of the presidential contest.

The president of the Superior Electoral Court formally announced Lula’s victory Sunday night, congratulating both presidential candidates and reviewing the administration of the nationwide election.

More than 128 million Brazilians participated in the runoff, with voter turnout exceeding 80% of those eligible. The election followed a fiercely contested campaign in which the candidates offered sharply different approaches to economic policy, public security, and Brazil’s international relationships.

Lula’s victory marks his fourth nonconsecutive presidential term and extends the political career of one of Latin America’s most prominent left-wing leaders.

Bolsonaro, a conservative senator, had sought to return his family’s political movement to the presidency after his father lost to Lula in 2022.

Jair Bolsonaro is currently serving a 27-year prison sentence following his conviction in connection with an attempted coup after the 2022 election. The elder Bolsonaro has denied wrongdoing, and his political allies have continued to challenge the treatment he received from Brazil’s judicial authorities.

The younger Bolsonaro’s refusal to concede has revived concerns about another prolonged confrontation over the legitimacy of Brazil’s presidential elections.

His campaign has indicated that it intends to pursue legal action, although the precise grounds and timetable for a formal challenge have not yet been established.

Meanwhile, Lula celebrated his victory with supporters, presenting the result as a renewed mandate for his administration and promising to govern on behalf of Brazilians across the political spectrum.

The outcome also carries implications for Brazil’s relationship with Washington. Lula has frequently criticized President Donald Trump’s foreign policy, while the Bolsonaro family has maintained closer political ties with Trump and his allies.

International reaction to the election has begun to emerge, with leaders from several countries congratulating Lula on his victory. As of Monday’s reporting, the Trump administration had not publicly issued a congratulatory statement.

Financial markets reacted sharply to the result, with Brazil’s currency and major stock index suffering substantial declines amid investor concerns about the country’s fiscal outlook and the direction of economic policy under another Lula administration.

Despite his victory, Lula will face significant political obstacles, including a conservative-dominated Congress containing numerous lawmakers aligned with the Bolsonaro movement.

The immediate question, however, is whether the election dispute will remain a legal challenge or develop into a broader political confrontation.

Bolsonaro has made clear that he does not intend to recognize the declared result, while election authorities maintain that Lula won by a decisive numerical margin.

With Lula preparing to begin another term on January 5, 2027, Brazil now faces the prospect of a renewed battle over election procedures, judicial authority, and the legitimacy of its presidential vote.

In a significant development in the decades-long battle over control of Ponevezh Yeshiva in Bnei Brak, Israel’s Supreme Court ruled Monday that the faction headed by Rav Shmuel Markowitz cannot be forced to vacate the yeshiva premises in the middle of the academic year, postponing the threatened eviction until the 10th of Av 5787, in the summer of 2027.

The decision, issued by Supreme Court Justice Ofer Grosskopf, provides a major reprieve for the yeshiva and its more than 1,200 talmidim and avreichim, who had faced the possibility of being displaced following an arbitration ruling in favor of the Kahaneman family.

The court also expressed serious reservations regarding a financial obligation of approximately 10 million shekels imposed under the arbitration award, raising concerns that enforcing such a substantial payment could jeopardize the continued operation of an institution serving hundreds of young men.

The ruling does not bring the longstanding dispute to an end. A separate request for permission to appeal the underlying arbitration decision remains pending before Supreme Court Justice David Mintz, leaving the broader questions of control of the yeshiva property and the substantial financial award unresolved.

The latest proceedings arose after Rav Markowitz and the Mesores HaTorah nonprofit organization petitioned the Supreme Court to suspend implementation of the arbitration ruling, which called for their removal from the disputed premises and imposed a substantial monetary obligation.

Attorneys representing the Kahaneman family sought to have the eviction carried out without further delay. However, Justice Grosskopf determined that the consequences of removing an educational institution of this magnitude during the academic year required consideration.

According to figures submitted by the petitioners, the yeshiva and its affiliated kollelim currently serve 1,266 talmidim and avreichim. Of those, 226 are minors, while approximately 837 are dormitory residents who depend on the institution for their living arrangements in addition to their learning.

The petitioners argued that an immediate eviction would cause severe disruption to the lives and education of hundreds of bochurim, many of whom would suddenly find themselves without their established places of learning and residence.

Justice Grosskopf accepted the need to avoid such disruption during the academic year, establishing the 10th of Av 5787 as the postponed eviction date. The timing places the deadline after the conclusion of the regular yeshiva year, providing the institution with additional time to address its circumstances while the legal proceedings continue.

The financial component of the arbitration ruling also drew the court’s attention.

The monetary obligation originated in the arbitration proceedings overseen by retired judge David Cheshin, whose decision formed the basis of the subsequent enforcement efforts.

Justice Grosskopf raised concerns about the potentially devastating consequences of imposing a financial burden of approximately 10 million shekels on an institution responsible for the education of such a large number of students. The court’s reservations, however, should not be confused with a final cancellation of the financial award, which remains part of the ongoing legal dispute.

The case is the latest chapter in the bitter and prolonged struggle between the rival factions of Ponevezh Yeshiva, one of the most prominent Torah institutions in the world.

For decades, the dispute has centered on competing claims to the leadership, administration, and use of the yeshiva’s historic Bnei Brak campus. The faction associated with the Kahaneman family and the faction led by Rav Shmuel Markowitz have been engaged in repeated legal battles over their respective rights within the institution.

The controversy has extended well beyond internal disagreements, resulting in arbitration proceedings, court litigation, and continuing uncertainty over the future use of the premises.

The current arbitration ruling represented a significant development in favor of the Kahaneman family’s position, particularly because it provided for the removal of the opposing faction from the disputed property.

Monday’s Supreme Court decision does not overturn that determination. Instead, it delays the practical implementation of the eviction while the separate legal challenge proceeds.

That distinction is particularly important because the request for permission to appeal the arbitration ruling will be considered independently by Justice David Mintz. The outcome of those proceedings could have substantial implications for the next stage of the dispute.

For the immediate future, however, the decision means that Rav Markowitz’s yeshiva will be able to continue operating at its present location without facing eviction in the middle of the current zeman.

The ruling also underscores the court’s concern for the welfare of the talmidim and avreichim, whose learning and living arrangements could be profoundly affected by the enforcement of the arbitration award.

Additional reporting on Monday’s hearing indicated that Justice Grosskopf also proposed requiring the Markowitz faction to commit in writing to vacating the premises by the new deadline, refrain from using the Ponevezh name, and prevent violence. Attorneys representing the Kahaneman faction argued that the continued shared use of the campus has caused friction and deprived their students of dormitory space.

Although initial reports described the postponement as a court ruling, detailed accounts of the proceedings indicated that some of the conditions discussed by Justice Grosskopf remained proposals and that a final written decision was still pending. The precise terms of the postponement and the treatment of the financial award therefore remain subject to confirmation in the court’s written order.

While the postponement gives the yeshiva several additional months, it leaves the institution facing considerable uncertainty. Unless subsequent legal developments alter the situation, the new eviction deadline is expected to fall in the summer of 2027.

The legal battle over Ponevezh Yeshiva is therefore far from concluded, with the Supreme Court still expected to address the challenge to the arbitration ruling that lies at the center of the dispute.

[COMMUNICATED]

With neither family able to cover the wedding expenses, HaGaon Rav Moshe Sternbuch shlit”a calls upon Klal Yisroel to help this yasom reach his chuppah.

A chasunah is supposed to be one of the happiest days in a family’s life. For a mother marrying off her son, it’s a moment she has waited years to experience. But for one widow, that long-awaited simcha has become a source of overwhelming worry. Her son is preparing to get married, and she simply doesn’t have the money to make it happen.

There is no father to help shoulder the burden. His mother is struggling to cover even the necessary expenses, and the kallah’s family is not in a financial position to help either. Two young people are ready to begin building their home together, but the financial reality facing their families is making what should be a beautiful new beginning painfully difficult.

This chosson’s situation was brought before HaGaon Rav Moshe Sternbuch shlit”a, who described the opportunity to help him as an exceptional mitzvah and urged Klal Yisroel to contribute. When a gadol of Rav Sternbuch’s stature personally calls attention to the plight of a yasom preparing for his chasunah, it underscores just how much is at stake — and what an extraordinary zechus it is to take part in helping him.

The chosson doesn’t need a lavish wedding. He needs the opportunity to stand beneath his chuppah without the crushing worry of how everything will be paid for. His mother deserves to experience her son’s simcha with some measure of peace, rather than carrying the entire burden alone. We cannot replace the father who won’t be standing beside him. But we can make sure this chosson doesn’t have to face the financial burden of his wedding alone.

Help this yasom reach his chuppah with dignity and simcha.

DONATE HERE: https://thechesedfund.com/kollelinternativvvonalinc

With Israel’s Knesset elections just one day away, the latest public opinion polls indicate that Gadi Eisenkot’s Yashar party could emerge as the largest faction in the next Knesset, ahead of Prime Minister Binyomin Netanyahu’s Likud, while neither political bloc is projected to secure the 61 seats needed to establish a government.

A comparison of four major surveys published ahead of Tuesday’s elections shows Eisenkot maintaining a narrow lead over Netanyahu in the race for the largest party, with the balance of power potentially determined by smaller factions struggling to cross the electoral threshold.

According to an analysis published by Maariv, the four surveys give Eisenkot’s Yashar an average of 22 Knesset seats, compared with approximately 20 for Netanyahu’s Likud.

Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett’s B’Yachad party follows with an average of 14.5 seats, while Yair Golan’s Democrats receive approximately 9.5 seats and Avigdor Liberman’s Yisrael Beytenu averages eight.

The surveys present a particularly complicated picture regarding the formation of the next government.

Across the four polls, the opposition parties average 54 seats, compared with approximately 49.5 seats for Netanyahu’s bloc. The Arab parties are projected to receive approximately 14.5 seats.

Since a majority in the 120-member Knesset requires 61 seats, neither of the two principal blocs would be able to form a government independently under these projections.

The situation places particular importance on the smaller parties, several of which are polling close to the 3.25% electoral threshold required to enter the Knesset.

In the final Maariv survey, the opposition bloc received 54 seats, while Netanyahu’s bloc was projected to win 48.

The poll showed Eisenkot’s Yashar holding steady at 21 seats, while Bennett’s party climbed to 15. The Democrats received 10 seats, and Yisrael Beytenu remained at eight.

On the coalition side, Likud, Shas, and the Religious Zionist Party each gained one seat compared with the previous survey, while United Torah Judaism and Otzma Yehudit each lost one.

The poll also showed Ofer Winter’s People of Israel party receiving 3% of the vote, narrowly missing the electoral threshold.

Winter’s party has attracted considerable attention during the campaign, particularly because of concerns within Netanyahu’s political camp that votes cast for smaller right-wing parties could be lost if those parties fail to enter the Knesset.

Another significant development involves the joint Reservists and Economic Party list, headed by former Communications Minister Yoaz Hendel and economist Yaron Zelekha.

That party crossed the threshold in the Maariv poll, receiving four seats, but its position remains uncertain.

Across the four surveys, the joint list crossed the threshold in only two, receiving four seats in each. Its average support stood at approximately 3.1%, slightly below the required 3.25%.

The Channel 13 survey presented a similarly divided political picture, giving Eisenkot’s Yashar 22 seats compared with 19 for Likud.

Bennett’s B’Yachad received 14 seats, while Netanyahu’s bloc was projected to receive 50 seats against 54 for the principal opposition bloc.

Of particular interest to the chareidi community, Channel 13 found that the newly established HaTzibbur HaChareidi party, headed by Motti Leitner, received just 1.3% of the vote, well below the electoral threshold.

Winter’s party received 3.1%, while the Hendel-Zelekha list stood at 3%, leaving all three outside the Knesset under that survey.

The Kan 11 poll also placed Eisenkot ahead of Netanyahu, with Yashar receiving 22 seats and Likud 20.

Bennett’s party was projected to receive 14 seats, while Netanyahu’s bloc received 50 seats and the principal opposition bloc 52.

The Arab parties received a combined 14 seats, and the Hendel-Zelekha list secured four.

Winter’s party, HaTzibbur HaChareidi, and the Noam party all failed to cross the threshold in that survey.

For the established chareidi parties, the polling presents an additional concern as they seek to maintain their representation in the Knesset.

Shas and United Torah Judaism each average approximately 7.5 seats across the four surveys, while Otzma Yehudit averages 7.75 and the joint Religious Zionism-Zehut list averages seven.

The uncertainty surrounding the smaller parties has become one of the central issues in the final days of the campaign.

Under Israel’s electoral system, parties that fail to receive at least 3.25% of the vote do not receive any Knesset seats. Consequently, substantial numbers of votes cast for unsuccessful smaller parties could affect the distribution of seats among the factions that do enter the Knesset.

{Matzav.com}

Rav Shmuel Betzalel, rosh yeshiva of Porat Yosef and a member of Shas’ Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah, has emphatically rejected allegations that Shas chairman Aryeh Deri dictates decisions to the party’s rabbinic leadership, revealing details of the extensive deliberations surrounding the proposed draft law and insisting that the Gedolei HaTorah independently determine the movement’s positions.

In a rare and wide-ranging interview with Avi Mimran on Radio Kol Chai’s main evening news program ahead of Tuesday’s Knesset elections, Rav Betzalel addressed the controversy surrounding the drafting of bnei yeshivos, the future of the Sephardic Torah world, criticism of Shas from within the chareidi community, and the growing influence of Israel’s judiciary.

“Never did Rav Aryeh Deri give an instruction or direct us in any way,” Rav Betzalel declared. “There were exhausting negotiations here. We discussed every clause for hours and hours.”

The rosh yeshiva, who has been closely involved with Shas since its establishment, described the discussions that took place in his home concerning the proposed legislation regulating the status of bnei yeshivos.

“I was the head of the committee dealing with the draft law,” he revealed. “Attias sat here, Rav Attias, and Azulai, who was on the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.”

He was referring to former minister Ariel Attias and Knesset member Yinon Azulai, both of whom participated in the discussions.

“There were exhausting negotiations here over whether we would accept the law. We discussed every clause for hours and hours, what this provision or that provision could lead to,” Rav Betzalel said.

He stressed that the Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah carefully examines the implications of proposed legislation before reaching its conclusions, and that the decisions are not simply presented to the rabbonim by political representatives for approval.

According to Rav Betzalel, the same principle applies to major political decisions, including whether Shas should join a governing coalition. Such matters, he explained, are determined by the Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah rather than by any individual politician.

The rosh yeshiva made clear that he personally examines the issues under consideration and does not hesitate to engage in lengthy discussions over matters affecting the future of the Torah world.

During the interview, Rav Betzalel also reflected on the early years of Shas and his personal involvement in the movement’s establishment.

He recalled the longstanding relationship he maintained with Maran Chacham Shalom Cohen zt”l and described the circumstances that led to the creation of a political movement specifically representing the Sephardic Torah community.

For many years, he explained, Sephardic families and institutions suffered from inadequate representation, insufficient resources, and a shortage of educational opportunities.

The establishment of Shas was intended to address those deficiencies and provide the Sephardic community with the means to develop its own network of yeshivos, Talmudei Torah, and other Torah institutions.

Rav Betzalel recalled an early meeting at Yeshivas Porat Yosef attended by Rav Yitzchak Peretz, one of the original leaders of Shas, and spoke about Chacham Shalom Cohen’s involvement in the discussions that shaped the movement’s direction.

“I think there is no movement and no party, even among the chareidi parties that we accompany, support, and love, like Shas, which is a living movement,” he said.

He pointed to the tremendous expansion of the Sephardic olam haTorah as evidence of the movement’s accomplishments over the decades.

According to Rav Betzalel, the number of talmidim attending Sephardic yeshivos ketanos today exceeds the combined number attending Litvishe and Chassidishe yeshivos ketanos.

He also noted that Shas continues to establish new Talmudei Torah, including in communities where the number of prospective talmidim is relatively small.

For Rav Betzalel, these developments demonstrate that the movement’s mission extends far beyond political representation and is fundamentally connected to the growth and preservation of Sephardic Torah education.

Turning to the contentious issue of military conscription, Rav Betzalel sharply criticized the sanctions imposed on bnei yeshivos and warned that certain elements in Israeli society are seeking to undermine the very existence of the Torah world.

He emphasized, however, that a distinction must be made between bochurim who are genuinely sitting and learning in yeshiva and young men who are not engaged in Torah study.

When Mimran asked about the status of those who are not learning, Rav Betzalel clarified that Shas has never maintained that every chareidi young man must be exempt from military service regardless of his circumstances.

“Shas never said, at least I certainly did not, and the Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah never said, that it is forbidden to enlist in the army,” he explained.

He stressed that the immediate responsibility of the rabbinic leadership is to protect those bochurim who devote themselves to learning Torah.

“We are obligated to establish a law for the bochurim who are sitting and learning. Those who are not learning will arrange their status according to the law,” Rav Betzalel stated.

At the same time, he expressed serious reservations about the military’s treatment of religious soldiers who seek to maintain their religious observance.

The rosh yeshiva recounted an incident that had been brought to his attention involving the observance of Shabbos by religious soldiers, citing it as an example of his concerns about whether the army adequately accommodates the religious needs of its personnel.

The details of that particular incident were presented as an account relayed to Rav Betzalel and were not independently verified during the interview.

Another subject addressed during the conversation was the position of certain Sephardic chareidi groups that oppose participation in Knesset elections, citing the practices of earlier Gedolei Torah, including Rav Ben Tzion Abba Shaul zt”l and Rav Yehuda Tzadkah zt”l.

Rav Betzalel challenged the suggestion that the personal voting practices of those Gedolim should be interpreted as opposition to Shas or its activities.

He explained that some rabbonim had refrained from voting because that had been the practice of their own rabbeim, but this did not necessarily mean they opposed the establishment of Shas or the movement’s efforts on behalf of the Sephardic community.

“They said that their rabbeim did not go to vote, so personally they did not go,” Rav Betzalel explained.

He criticized those who portray these Gedolim as having been categorically opposed to electoral participation, arguing that such presentations fail to accurately reflect their historical positions.

In the final portion of the interview, Rav Betzalel discussed the balance of power between the Knesset and Israel’s judicial system.

He expressed concern that, over the years, authority has increasingly shifted toward unelected legal officials, limiting the ability of elected representatives to implement the policies for which they were chosen.

Rav Betzalel voiced hope that the next government would be able to advance legislation addressing this imbalance and removing sanctions imposed on the olam hayeshivos.

{Matzav.com}

Gadi Eisenkot, chairman of Israel’s Yashar party, declared Sunday evening that if he becomes prime minister, every student in Israel will be required to study the state’s core secular curriculum within four years, and educational institutions that refuse to comply will lose government funding.

Speaking before thousands of supporters at his party’s election rally, Eisenkot outlined a series of commitments involving education, military service, government spending, national security, and the future of Hamas in Gaza.

“Within four years, all Israeli students will study core subjects and be part of the state education system. Those who do not will not receive funding,” Eisenkot declared.

The announcement follows the publication of his party’s education platform over the weekend, which includes proposals to reduce government funding for chareidi schools that do not meet the party’s curriculum requirements.

Under Eisenkot’s proposal, schools would be required to incorporate the state’s core curriculum, commonly referred to in Israel as limudei libah, or face the loss of public financial support.

The policy would have significant implications for chareidi educational institutions, many of which maintain independent curricula centered on Torah learning and do not teach the full range of secular subjects required in the state education system.

Eisenkot also presented a timetable for the measures he intends to introduce if he forms Israel’s next government.

He pledged that on his first day in office, he would establish a state commission of inquiry, and that within one week, his government would create a national cabinet dedicated to combating crime.

During that same first week, he said, legislation would begin on a universal national service law, which would address the obligations of Israeli citizens to serve.

Within his first month, Eisenkot promised to enact legislation granting priority to communities located along Israel’s borders and other confrontation zones.

He further pledged that within one year, government ministries would operate according to a policy giving preference in benefits and entitlements to citizens who serve and work.

The proposals reflect Eisenkot’s broader campaign platform, which places particular emphasis on military service obligations, changes to government funding priorities, and reforms affecting the chareidi education system.

Turning to national security, Eisenkot repeated his commitment to eliminate Hamas’s control over the Gaza Strip within 18 months of assuming office.

“Within eighteen months of my taking office, the Hamas terrorist organization will no longer control Gaza. There is no person more committed to dismantling Hamas than I am,” he told the gathering.

Eisenkot also directed part of his address toward supporters of Prime Minister Binyomin Netanyahu’s Likud party, urging them to reconsider their political allegiance in Tuesday’s election.

“I know how difficult it is to choose differently, but this time, it is not you who are choosing a different path; it is Likud that has strayed from the path,” he said.

The Yashar chairman argued that his party must emerge from the election with a substantial lead over Likud if Netanyahu is to be replaced.

“Netanyahu wants a tie. Only that way can he claim that he needs to remain in office. On Tuesday, Netanyahu must go home,” Eisenkot declared.

He maintained that unless Yashar wins significantly more seats than Likud, the election will not produce the political change his party is seeking.

Eisenkot also cautioned supporters against assuming that a change in government is inevitable.

“Anyone who thinks that change is guaranteed is mistaken and misleading others,” he warned.

In another attack on Netanyahu, Eisenkot alleged that the prime minister “will not hesitate to use any lie or any extreme measure in order to remain in power.”

{Matzav.com}

Does the mitzvah of kibbud av va’eim obligate a son to vote for the political candidate his father supports? Rav Avrohom Yosef addressed the question during his “Shamor V’Zachor” program on Radio Kol Chai, explaining that a father’s political preference does not create a halachic obligation for his son to vote for that candidate.

The question arose when a listener related that his father had instructed him to vote specifically for Prime Minister Binyomin Netanyahu. He wanted to know whether honoring his father required him to follow that instruction at the ballot box.

Rav Yosef explained that voting for the chareidi parties already constitutes support for Netanyahu and his political camp, but stressed that an election is not necessarily about personal allegiance to any particular political leader.

He emphasized that the proper approach is to follow the guidance of the Gedolei HaTorah while recognizing that the outcome of an election ultimately rests in the hands of the Ribono Shel Olam.

Rav Yosef described voting as an act of hishtadlus, explaining that every Jewish man and woman has a responsibility to make the appropriate effort by participating in the election.

At the same time, he said, a person must remember that political leaders are merely human beings and that the ultimate authority over who governs rests with Hashem.

Citing the posuk, “Lev melech v’sarim b’yad Hashem,” Rav Yosef explained that the hearts of kings and rulers are in the hands of Hashem, and it is He Who determines who will ultimately lead Klal Yisroel.

He urged listeners to daven that Hashem guide those who assume positions of leadership, regardless of whether they come from the political right or left, and that their decisions be motivated by concern for Klal Yisroel rather than personal interests.

Rav Yosef also cautioned against developing an excessive attachment to any political figure, recalling a particularly sharp expression his father, Rav Ovadia Yosef zt”l, had used regarding Netanyahu approximately twenty years ago.

At the time, Rav Ovadia referred to Netanyahu as an “eizah iveres,” a blind goat.

Rav Avrohom Yosef invoked the remark to illustrate that political leaders should never become objects of unquestioning admiration or devotion.

Nevertheless, Rav Yosef acknowledged that Netanyahu has demonstrated loyalty toward his political partners in recent years, particularly during the most recent period.

He said that Netanyahu had proven himself through his integrity and faithfulness to the political understandings he had reached with his coalition partners.

However, Rav Yosef stressed that past conduct does not guarantee future behavior, and that one must never place complete trust in any human being.

It was in that context that he returned to the original question concerning kibbud av va’eim, explaining that a father’s request that his son support a particular politician does not transform that political choice into a religious obligation arising from the mitzvah of honoring parents.

Rav Yosef also addressed the increasingly heated election campaign, including attempts by political figures and activists on both the right and left to pressure voters through dramatic declarations and pledges.

He dismissed the significance of such declarations and urged the public to remain focused on the instructions of the Gedolei HaTorah and the morei hador.

Rather than becoming swept up in political arguments concerning prisons, police enforcement, or the drafting of chareidim into the military, Rav Yosef said the Torah community must remain focused on its fundamental priorities.

“Our portion is not with them. Our portion is with the Torah, and the Torah, and the Torah, for the education of the children of Israel,” Rav Yosef concluded.

{Matzav.com}

Families may be throwing away hundreds of dollars every month without realizing it, simply because of poor grocery shopping habits, inadequate meal planning, and food that sits forgotten in the refrigerator until it spoils.

Israeli financial commentator Hillel Kessler says that the average family discards nearly one-quarter of the food it purchases, potentially wasting thousands of dollars over the course of a year.

Speaking during his regular “Osim Seder BaKis” financial advice segment on Radio Kol Chai, Kessler explained that relatively small changes in shopping and food storage habits can produce substantial savings without requiring families to reduce the amount or quality of food they consume.

“If your monthly grocery bill is 2,500 shekels, approximately 600 shekels of that amount goes directly into the garbage every month,” Kessler said.

“That isn’t just food going bad. Those are banknotes that we are simply throwing away with our own hands.”

Kessler outlined three practical steps that he said could help families reduce unnecessary food waste and keep more money in their pockets.

His first recommendation is to prepare a weekly meal plan before heading to the supermarket, including the meals that will be served on Shabbos.

Rather than wandering through grocery aisles and deciding what to purchase based on whatever looks appealing, families should determine in advance what they intend to cook each day.

For example, Monday’s menu might include meatballs, while Tuesday could feature a dairy meal. Once the menu is established, shoppers can identify exactly which ingredients are needed and avoid buying items that are unlikely to be used.

“When you know exactly what is being cooked each day, you know exactly which ingredients you are missing and which ingredients will simply remain in the refrigerator and end their lives in the garbage,” Kessler explained.

The second recommendation is to shop with a prepared grocery list and avoid entering the supermarket while hungry.

Kessler noted that grocery chains employ a variety of marketing techniques, including background music, enticing aromas, and special promotions, to encourage customers to purchase products they had not originally intended to buy.

He urged shoppers to treat their grocery lists as firm guidelines rather than casual suggestions.

“The list you wrote at home after planning your menu is not a recommendation. It is the law,” he said.

Kessler explained that sticking to a list does not mean refusing to purchase something genuinely necessary simply because it was accidentally omitted. Nor does it mean ignoring a worthwhile discount on a product the family regularly uses.

However, he warned against buying unnecessary products merely because they are being advertised at a reduced price.

“Sales on things you don’t need are simply a spending trap,” he cautioned.

His third recommendation focuses on something that takes only a few minutes but can prevent considerable waste: checking the refrigerator before the weekly grocery trip.

Kessler advised families to spend approximately two minutes examining what is already in the refrigerator, paying particular attention to vegetables, cheeses, and other products approaching their expiration dates.

Items that need to be used soon should be moved to the front of the refrigerator, where family members are more likely to notice them.

He also encouraged families to find creative ways to use ingredients that may no longer look their freshest but are still suitable for consumption.

“You can make soup, a kugel, or an excellent shakshuka for supper from vegetables that are a little tired,” he explained.

After returning from the supermarket, newly purchased products should be placed behind older ones so that the food already in the refrigerator gets used first.

This approach, commonly known as the “first in, first out” method, helps prevent food from being forgotten at the back of refrigerator shelves until it expires.

Kessler emphasized that reducing grocery expenses does not require families to deprive themselves of necessities or compromise their standard of living.

Rather, the objective is to eliminate waste by making better decisions about what to purchase, how much to purchase, and how to store food once it is brought home.

“Saving money on grocery shopping is not about deprivation or stinginess. It is simply proper management,” Kessler said.

“Planning a weekly menu, shopping strictly according to a list, and managing the refrigerator properly will leave hundreds of shekels in your pocket every single month.”

For a family spending 2,500 shekels monthly on groceries, the estimated waste of 600 shekels represents approximately 7,200 shekels over the course of a year.

{Matzav.com}

The U.S. Department of Transportation has imposed a combined $425,000 in penalties on Air France and KLM after determining that the European airlines operated more than 130 flights over Iraq at altitudes below the minimum permitted under American aviation safety regulations.

The violations, which occurred between 2022 and 2025, involved flights operating under codeshare agreements with Delta Air Lines, making them subject to U.S. restrictions despite being operated by foreign carriers.

The penalties were announced Friday, October 23, following an investigation by the Department of Transportation’s aviation consumer protection authorities.

According to the findings, Dutch carrier KLM operated more than 100 flights below the permitted altitude, while Air France conducted more than 30 such flights during the period under investigation.

The issue was not that the aircraft entered Iraqi airspace, but that they descended below the minimum altitude established by American aviation authorities for flights operating in the region.

U.S. regulations require covered aircraft flying through the Baghdad Flight Information Region to remain at or above 32,000 feet, approximately 9.75 kilometers, because of security concerns associated with the region.

The altitude restriction is intended to reduce the danger posed to civilian aircraft by ground-based weapons and other potential threats in an area that has experienced years of military conflict and instability.

Flying below that threshold without authorization constitutes a violation of the applicable safety requirements.

Under the settlement, KLM received the larger penalty of $320,000, while Air France was assessed a $105,000 fine.

Of the combined $425,000, the airlines must pay $265,000 within 60 days. The remaining $160,000 will become payable only if the carriers commit additional violations during the following year.

Both companies were also directed to refrain from similar violations in the future.

In their responses to the investigation, the airlines maintained that their pilots had been following instructions issued by local air traffic controllers.

According to the carriers, Iraqi air traffic control personnel directed aircraft to descend because of congestion in the airspace, and refusing those instructions could have created additional safety risks.

The airlines argued that their crews were placed in a difficult operational position, forced to choose between complying with local air traffic control directions and maintaining the altitude required by American regulations.

The Department of Transportation rejected that explanation.

Federal officials determined that the airlines should have taken steps to avoid repeated violations once they became aware that local controllers were regularly directing aircraft below the American minimum altitude.

According to the department, the carriers could have planned alternative routes that avoided the affected airspace or removed Delta Air Lines’ flight code from services that could not reliably comply with the restrictions.

Because the flights were marketed under Delta’s code, they remained subject to the applicable American safety rules.

The codeshare arrangements allowed passengers to purchase tickets bearing Delta flight numbers even though the aircraft were operated by Air France or KLM.

Such agreements are common among international airlines, enabling carriers to market one another’s flights and provide passengers with connecting services across their respective networks.

However, the arrangements can also subject foreign-operated flights to regulatory requirements associated with the American airline whose code appears on the service.

{Matzav.com}

Dear Matzav Inbox,

I have a question that has been bothering me more and more as Election Day approaches. Have we reached the point where the only consideration in frum politics is, “What can we get from the politicians for our communities?”

Is that really the beginning and end of the conversation? How much government funding can we secure? How many grants can our mosdos receive? How many programs can be expanded, how many favors can be obtained, and how many elected officials can be persuaded to return our phone calls?

What about the politicians themselves? Does it matter what they believe? What they say when they are not standing at our dinners or posing for photographs with our rabbonim? What their positions are on morality, on the family, on the issues that are changing the character of this country, or on Eretz Yisroel? Are those matters simply irrelevant once someone promises us another allocation of public money?

Surely there must be a difference between maintaining a working relationship with an elected official and publicly embracing that official as though his or her entire record deserves our admiration.

That distinction seems to get lost far too often. A politician can take positions that many in our community consider deeply objectionable, yet the moment a check is delivered or a grant is announced, the photographs appear, the speeches begin, and the praise flows. Suddenly, questions about values become inconvenient. We are told to be practical. We are told that this is how politics works. We are told that we must look after our own.

Fine. Let us be practical. But since when did practicality require us to abandon discernment?

And why is it that the public is so often presented with only one side of the ledger? We hear exactly how much money a politician helped obtain. We hear about the permits, services, and programs. But do we hear, with equal clarity, what that politician believes about the moral questions that shape the society in which our children are growing up? Do we hear where that politician stands when Israel is under attack or when Jews face hostility? Shouldn’t those questions at least be part of an honest communal discussion?

We spend enormous effort teaching our children that Torah values are not negotiable. We tell them that a Yid must stand for something, even when doing so is inconvenient. We teach them to resist the temptation to measure everything in dollars and cents. Then election season arrives, and the message they sometimes see is that the most important qualification for public office is the ability to produce funding for our institutions.

What are they supposed to learn from that? That principles belong in the classroom, while politics operates by an entirely different set of rules? That moral convictions are important until a politician offers us something we want? That the question is never what a candidate stands for, but only what we stand to gain?

A public endorsement carries a message far beyond one vote. It tells the world something about what we are willing to overlook, what we choose to emphasize, and what we consider important enough to defend.

What happens to our credibility when we speak passionately about moral issues throughout the year, only to appear indifferent to those same issues when the politician on the other side of the table can deliver a benefit? People notice these contradictions. Our children notice them. The broader public notices them. Most troubling of all, we should notice them ourselves.

We should be able to ask hard questions without being dismissed as naïve. We should be able to examine a politician’s record without being told that doing so threatens communal interests. We should be able to distinguish between what benefits our institutions today and what kind of society we are helping shape for tomorrow.

If our entire political philosophy can be reduced to “What can you give us?” then perhaps the most uncomfortable question is not what the politicians have become. It is what we have allowed ourselves to become.

Surely our principles are worth more than that.

Shmuel Hoffman

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

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

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

The growing population of working and modern chareidim in Israel can no longer be dismissed as a small group on the fringes of the community, and established chareidi institutions must recognize their needs and provide them with proper representation, according to chareidi activist Eliakim Stark.

In an interview with Yishai Cohen on Kikar HaShabbat, Stark addressed the establishment of the new “HaTzibbur HaChareidi” (The Chareidi Public) political party by his close friend, Motti Leitner, acknowledging that the movement represents genuine concerns within the chareidi community while arguing that meaningful change should be pursued from within the existing establishment rather than through a separate political party.

Stark began by disclosing his close personal relationship with Leitner and revealing that the two had discussed the proposed party extensively before its establishment.

“First of all, Motti is a very good friend of mine. We have spoken for countless hours, including about the new party. We discussed this and the need of the younger chareidi public, which wants people to pay attention to it and make changes in various areas. Motti is a friend,” Stark said.

Despite their friendship and his acknowledgment of the concerns motivating Leitner’s political initiative, Stark maintained that they disagree fundamentally about the most effective way to bring about change.

“My position then was the same as my position today: The greatest change can be achieved from within the system, from within the establishment,” he explained.

Asked whether he views himself as an alternative to Leitner’s party, Stark said the issue extends far beyond one political movement. He described a substantial transformation within the chareidi population, particularly among working chareidim and those commonly described as modern chareidim.

According to Stark, individuals who were once treated as outsiders have become a large and increasingly established segment of the community, one that expects its needs to be addressed without having to abandon its chareidi identity.

“Motti Leitner and the public he represents certainly have legitimate grievances, naturally,” Stark said. “There was a time when people were labeled ‘modern chareidim’ and pushed to the fringes. That manifested itself in their leaving the chareidi community institutionally, even though they remained observant of Torah and mitzvos.”

Stark said that the situation has changed dramatically as the population in question has continued to grow.

“Today, those fringes have become very large. They are no longer fringes! The public is saying, ‘Listen, I want to live this way. I want a shul that suits me, in my spirit, and I am here to stay.’”

To illustrate his argument, Stark recounted a recent meeting he held with members of the Kedushas Levi community in Bnei Brak, where most of those attending were supporters of Leitner.

During the gathering, Stark presented an analogy intended to demonstrate why established chareidi leadership must recognize the changing reality.

“I told them: Listen, you have a shul with 400 mispallelim, and you see three bochurim standing outside and chatting during davening. What do you do? You approach them and reprimand them. But when you go outside and see 60 bochurim talking, you understand that this is a phenomenon!”

At that point, Stark explained, the response must change because the issue can no longer be treated as an isolated problem involving a handful of individuals.

“Either you solve it at its root, or you open a separate minyan for them, or you create activities for them. That is the difference between isolated individuals and a phenomenon,” he said.

Stark argued that the same principle applies to the working and modern chareidi population. What may once have been regarded as a relatively small group with distinct preferences has grown into a significant constituency requiring institutions, services, communal frameworks, and representation suited to its needs.

He warned that established chareidi leadership cannot simply assume that these individuals will eventually return to existing communal structures or disappear from the public conversation.

“If you ignore them or think they will be pushed to the sidelines, that is not going to happen,” Stark said.

“They need to be taken care of and provided with everything. And I am their representative!”

{Matzav.com}

Maran Rav Dov Landau, rosh yeshiva of Slabodka, issued a sharp warning against newly established chareidi political parties at a major United Torah Judaism election gathering in Bnei Brak, accusing them of damaging the Torah world and misleading voters with false claims about their commitment to bnei yeshivos.

His remarks were directed at the newly formed HaTzibbur HaChareidi party, headed by Motti Leitner, as well as other smaller chareidi parties seeking support in Tuesday’s Knesset elections.

The address followed the publication of a letter in Rav Landau’s name on Motzoei Shabbos expressing opposition to the new parties. Speaking at the election gathering, Rav Landau reiterated his position in particularly forceful language.

“I call out with a pained heart to those who have gone astray and established various parties that do not have the approval of the chachomim. Please, you are harming the Torah world,” Rav Landau declared.

He accused the parties of presenting misleading arguments to justify their participation in the election, warning that their campaigns could cost the established chareidi parties valuable votes.

“All their claims are lies, because you are doing nothing but causing votes to be lost, and it is forbidden to support parties that are nothing but falsehood. The falsehood is clear to everyone,” he said.

Rav Landau continued with another unequivocal warning against supporting the new political movements.

“It is forbidden to support these parties, which are nothing but falsehood and damage. The claims of those parties that they are concerned about bnei yeshivos are lies,” he stated.

In the latter portion of his address, Rav Landau turned directly to Israel’s governing authorities, explaining that the Torah community’s political involvement is intended to protect the ability of bnei Torah to continue learning.

“I turn to the governing authorities: We have no desire for power, and we have no intention of harming the government. Our only desire is to learn Torah. We are not connected to this party or that party. We will support only those who will give us the ability to learn and allow the holy yeshivos to continue,” he declared.

{Matzav.com}