Feed aggregator

Efforts to resolve tensions between Shas chairman Aryeh Deri and Rav Yitzchak Yosef have hit a significant obstacle after Deri rejected a proposed agreement intended to prevent future clashes between the two sides, according to Israeli sources.

The setback comes amid intensive behind-the-scenes efforts to restore relations between Deri and Rav Yosef ahead of the upcoming elections. Despite the latest breakdown, intermediaries are continuing to work toward an understanding that could prevent the dispute from escalating further.

According to the sources, contrary to speculation surrounding the negotiations, Rav Yosef’s camp is not currently demanding that he be appointed president of the Shas Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah.

Instead, the central issue in the discussions has been a proposed arrangement governing the relationship between Rav Yosef and Deri going forward.

As part of the negotiations, Rav Yosef reportedly asked Deri to sign an agreement establishing understandings designed to prevent future confrontations between the two camps and allow Shas to operate while maintaining a functional and respectful working relationship.

Deri, however, firmly rejected the proposal, causing the talks to reach an impasse.

Despite that refusal, efforts to bridge the differences have not ended. Discussions are continuing quietly behind the scenes in an attempt to formulate an arrangement acceptable to both sides and prevent the existing tensions from intensifying as the election approaches.

The developments follow an earlier report that intensive contacts have been underway in recent days between Deri and Rav Yosef’s household, with those involved seeking to calm the strained relationship before the country heads to the polls.

Serving as the intermediary in the talks is Momo Deri, the Shas chairman’s brother, who is regarded within the party as a trusted figure frequently tapped to handle sensitive and particularly delicate assignments.

Attorney General Todd Blanche says the Trump administration does not need to seek a new vote from Congress to proceed with President Trump’s planned White House ballroom, arguing that lawmakers have already provided presidents with the legal authority to carry out such construction on the White House grounds.

“We don’t believe we have to go to Congress. We believe Congress has already given us the authority to do what we’re doing,” Blanche said during a Sunday appearance on Fox News’s “Fox News Sunday.”

Blanche pointed to renovations and construction undertaken by previous administrations, maintaining that Congress has long recognized broad presidential authority to make changes to the White House complex.

“Many presidents have done a tremendous amount of work to the White House, as they should, and Congress has authorized them to do so,” he added in discussion with anchor Shannon Bream, a lawyer criticized by Trump after the interview aired.

Bream pressed Blanche on why the administration would not simply request explicit congressional authorization for the project, which is estimated to cost approximately $900 million, if officials are confident that lawmakers have already granted the necessary authority.

The legal dispute has become increasingly urgent after a federal appeals court directed the administration to halt all work on the ballroom by Aug. 21 unless the Supreme Court intervenes and permits construction to continue.

Blanche said the administration is optimistic that the justices will side with the White House, while arguing that the project goes beyond providing an elaborate new venue for official events and includes significant security improvements.

“We’re hopeful that the Supreme Court recognizes that so we can get the ballroom finished as soon as possible. Remember, yes, it is a ballroom, but it’s also a meaningful upgrade and necessary part of the security of this city and the security of the president and his family,” Blanche said Sunday.

“And so it’s not just about a place for world leaders to come and have dinner, it’s also about making sure that the president and his family, guests, world leaders are safe when they’re in this city,” he added.

Democratic lawmakers have rejected the administration’s contention that the ballroom project serves a significant national-security purpose and have called on the Government Accountability Office to conduct an audit of the undertaking.

The project is being financed through a combination of taxpayer money and private donations, an arrangement that has also drawn scrutiny from critics who have questioned the transparency of the funding and the process used to approve the construction.

“The scale of this project, the destruction of historic architecture, the opaque and unorthodox combination of public funds with private funding sources, and the absence of standard federal review processes raise serious concerns about transparency, accountability, and stewardship of this national landmark,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter to the acting GAO comptroller general, Orice Williams Brown.

Zionist Organization of America National President Morton A. Klein is sharply condemning Steven Spielberg’s Righteous Persons Foundation over millions of dollars in grants to progressive Jewish organizations that Klein says undermine Israel and place Jews at risk.

Klein, whose parents were Holocaust survivors, issued the criticism following an exposé by Israeli-American activist, Betar leader and ZOA Coalition member Ronn Torossian titled “Where Schindler’s List Money Went.”

Torossian’s report examined IRS Form 990 filings from the Righteous Persons Foundation and detailed millions of dollars distributed to various organizations. Spielberg established the foundation with profits generated by Schindler’s List, his acclaimed film about the Holocaust and German industrialist Oskar Schindler’s rescue of Jews during World War II.

“This misuse of monies from Spielberg’s Holocaust film is despicable, shameful and frightening,” Klein charged.

Klein said the origins of the foundation’s money make the grants particularly disturbing, arguing that some of the organizations receiving the funds are pursuing agendas that threaten the very people whose survival was chronicled in Spielberg’s film.

“The brave German industrialist Oskar Schindler and the Jews whom Schindler saved must be rolling over in their graves,” he added. “The descendants of ‘Schindler’s Jews’ are now endangered by the organizations funded with Spielberg’s profits.”

Among the organizations identified in Torossian’s report, according to Klein, are Bend the Arc, which reportedly received $1.2 million; Jews United for Justice, which received approximately $925,000; T’ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights, which received roughly $690,000; and the Jewish Social Justice Roundtable, which received about $250,000.

Klein singled out Bend the Arc for particularly strong criticism, pointing to the organization’s opposition to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism as well as its political activism. He noted that Bend the Arc’s political arm endorsed Zohran Mamdani during his campaign for New York City mayor and assisted his candidacy through fundraising, canvassing and advertising.

The ZOA leader also attacked T’ruah, accusing the organization of repeatedly adopting positions antagonistic toward Israel. Klein pointed to its criticism of Israeli military operations in Gaza, opposition to the IHRA antisemitism definition, partnership with Breaking the Silence and activism involving Palestinian prisoners held by Israel.

Klein further charged that T’ruah and similar organizations supported wartime campaigns aimed at preventing weapons sales to Israel, arguing that efforts to restrict Israel’s access to arms endangered Israeli and Jewish lives.

He additionally took aim at T’ruah’s campaign challenging the tax-exempt status of pro-Israel Jewish charities and its emphasis on what the organization calls “settler violence” in Judea and Samaria. Klein vehemently rejected that description, calling it a “blood libel” that he said misrepresents incidents surrounding attacks on Jews.

According to Klein, his review of the Righteous Persons Foundation’s tax filings uncovered financial support for other organizations that he considers hostile to Israel, including the Jewish Council for Public Affairs.

Klein criticized the JCPA for leading a letter opposing Trump administration measures directed at anti-Israel activity on American college campuses. He described the administration’s actions as attempts to stop Hamas supporters from targeting Jewish students.

Klein argued that the controversy is made especially troubling by the history behind the money used to establish the foundation. Spielberg has said that he did not personally take a salary for Schindler’s List, with profits connected to the movie instead helping fund charitable projects focused on Jewish causes and Holocaust remembrance.

The ZOA president contrasted the grants documented in Torossian’s report with what he described as a lack of financial support for organizations dedicated to publicly defending Israel, protecting Jewish college students and combating attacks on the Jewish state.

Spielberg’s Righteous Persons Foundation “apparently gives no grants to Jewish organizations that defend Israel against libels and demonization, protect Jewish students on college campuses, protect Jewish safety, and truly stand up for the besieged Jewish descendants of Holocaust victims and survivors,” Klein charged.

“Shameful,” he concluded.

{Matzav.com}

The Trump administration established a secret line of communication with senior figures in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps after US officials concluded that the Iranian representatives participating in negotiations did not have the authority to make a binding agreement, according to a report.

The outreach came as American negotiators grew increasingly frustrated during discussions with Tehran and began questioning whether their Iranian counterparts actually represented the views of the IRGC, Axios reported.

Seeking a direct path to those wielding power inside Iran, the administration turned to Nechirvan Barzani, president of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. Barzani was considered a trusted figure by both Washington and the IRGC and was asked to help connect the United States with Iran’s true decision-makers, three sources told Axios.

The effort highlighted a central challenge confronting the White House as it seeks to negotiate an end to the war: determining who inside Iran has the authority to make commitments and finding intermediaries trusted by both Washington and the increasingly powerful IRGC.

The conflict has severely depleted Iran’s senior leadership while further consolidating the Revolutionary Guard’s influence. When the White House initially pursued an agreement in May, US officials reportedly discovered that the Iranian negotiators with whom they were dealing lacked the authority to finalize a deal and could be overruled by the IRGC.

Tulsi Gabbard, who was serving as director of national intelligence at the time, sought Barzani’s assistance because of his extensive connections inside Iran. According to the report, she wanted him to determine whether IRGC Commander Ahmad Vahidi supported the proposals being presented by Iranian negotiators or whether the Revolutionary Guard chief was demanding different terms.

Gabbard had previously been unable to establish direct contact with Vahidi. Barzani subsequently convinced the IRGC to facilitate communication between the two.

American officials also sought Barzani’s help in arranging secret face-to-face negotiations between high-ranking US and Iranian representatives in Erbil, Iraq.

Those clandestine talks ultimately never occurred because Iranian officials were reportedly concerned that Israeli intelligence could discover the meeting and attempt to assassinate them.

Barzani has continued his efforts to facilitate diplomacy, sending messages to the White House indicating that he is prepared to assist in restarting negotiations between Washington and Tehran.

US-Iran discussions have continued through other channels, with Pakistan and Qatar acting as intermediaries between the two countries. Despite those ongoing diplomatic efforts, however, the negotiations have so far produced little substantive progress.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani is backing legislation that would effectively dismantle Amazon’s network of independent delivery contractors in New York City, even as his own administration relies extensively on outside companies to provide workers for essential city services, the NY Post reports.

Mamdani has argued that Amazon’s use of delivery contractors amounts to exploitation. Yet when City Hall obtains workers through private employers to carry out government functions, the administration treats the arrangement as ordinary contracting.

The Delivery Protection Act, sponsored by City Council Member Tiffany Cabán and backed by Mamdani, would require Amazon and other companies operating last-mile facilities to directly employ workers performing core warehouse and delivery functions.

If enacted, the measure would effectively eliminate Amazon’s Delivery Service Partner program within the five boroughs.

Amazon says it currently works with more than 40 locally operated delivery companies that collectively employ over 5,000 New Yorkers.

Under Amazon’s current arrangement, the retailer contracts with those independent businesses, which then employ their own drivers. Most of those drivers are traditional employees rather than independent gig workers.

Cabán’s legislation would terminate the Amazon arrangements on which those delivery companies depend, potentially putting some of the businesses themselves at risk of closure.

Amazon would be required to offer positions to affected drivers, but the legislation would not guarantee that those workers retain their existing schedules, routes, benefits or level of job security.

Critics contend that the legislation also exposes a significant contradiction in Mamdani’s position because New York City itself routinely uses outside employers to supply workers.

The Mamdani administration, for example, contracted with an outside company to provide 109 temporary professionals for homeless services under an $8.46 million renewal that remained in effect through June 30.

City Hall also renewed an $11 million citywide trucking agreement under which an outside contractor supplies drivers and other labor.

Both arrangements operate on essentially the same structure being targeted at Amazon: A large entity contracts with an independent business, which employs workers who then perform the required services.

In City Hall’s case, such an arrangement is classified as government procurement. Mamdani, however, has characterized Amazon’s version of subcontracting as exploitation.

Supporters of the Amazon restrictions have cited workplace injuries and traffic safety problems associated with last-mile delivery operations, but critics argue that the evidence does not establish subcontracting itself as the cause.

The city comptroller’s office found a rate of 9.2 injuries per 100 full-time-equivalent workers among Amazon delivery contractors. However, the analysis did not compare that figure with injury rates among directly employed delivery workers or establish that changing the workers’ employer would improve safety.

Traffic data cited in support of the measure has similarly drawn questions. The comptroller found that crashes resulting in injuries increased near 14 of 18 last-mile facilities following their opening, but the study did not determine that vehicles associated with those facilities were responsible for the crashes.

Critics therefore argue that even if legitimate problems exist within last-mile delivery operations, there is insufficient evidence that the subcontracting structure causes them — particularly enough evidence to justify eliminating dozens of independent delivery companies.

Amazon, meanwhile, says its rate of serious crashes in New York City declined 35.7% between 2024 and 2025 after its delivery contractors implemented camera-based warning systems and driver coaching.

Opponents of the legislation contend that Mamdani is using concerns about safety to justify a fundamental restructuring of the employment model despite failing to demonstrate that the two issues are connected.

The proposed law would nevertheless impose sweeping changes on delivery operators.

Companies covered by the measure would be barred from outsourcing core warehouse and delivery operations and would be subject to extensive requirements governing worker retention and training. During the transition, operators could also face a $500,000 bond for every covered delivery worker not placed directly on their payroll.

At the same time, the legislation provides no comparable protection for owners of the independent delivery companies whose Amazon business could disappear under the new rules.

One such operator is Rudy Cazares, who runs an Amazon Delivery Service Partner business while also contracting with FedEx.

Cazares told The Post that his company employs approximately 130 W-2 workers, with starting wages of $23.75 per hour.

Under the Cabán-Mamdani proposal, his Amazon delivery business would not simply face additional regulation; its existing business model would effectively cease to be permitted.

Critics also point to a significant exemption written into the legislation: Government entities are excluded from its definition of a “facility operator.”

That exemption is particularly consequential because New York City depends heavily on outside contractors to carry out a vast range of public functions.

During fiscal year 2025, the city comptroller registered approximately 12,500 new procurement contracts with a combined multiyear face value of $42.3 billion.

In fiscal year 2024 alone, New York City spent approximately $8 billion on contractors providing human services.

Those agreements extend well beyond peripheral government work. City Hall relies on outside organizations to provide services that the city itself considers fundamental public responsibilities, including homeless shelters, mental-health programs and foster care.

Even Mamdani’s signature proposal for government-backed grocery stores is expected to rely on private operators contracted to manage the locations for the city.

Supporters of subcontracting argue that specialized outside businesses — including delivery companies — can offer expertise, flexibility and knowledge of local communities that large centralized organizations may struggle to provide.

Critics say Mamdani’s approach instead assumes that eliminating the intermediary employer automatically benefits workers, without adequately accounting for the independent businesses and jobs that could disappear in the process.

The economic consequences could also extend directly to New York City households. Estimates cited by opponents suggest the legislation could increase costs by as much as $664 per household annually.

Because the requirement would apply only within New York City, delivery companies could also find neighboring New Jersey, Long Island and Westchester County more attractive locations for their operations.

Warehouses located outside the five boroughs could continue delivering packages to city residents, but from greater distances.

That could produce longer delivery routes, additional vehicle mileage, higher operating expenses and increased traffic and emissions — potentially undermining the environmental arguments being made in favor of the legislation.

Small businesses, working-class customers and delivery employees could ultimately bear much of the cost and disruption created by those changes.

Critics argue that City Hall has a less disruptive alternative: directly regulate unsafe or abusive practices wherever they occur while permitting subcontracting arrangements that meet appropriate labor and safety standards, much as the city does with its own contractors.

The central challenge for Mamdani, they contend, is consistency. If subcontracting is inherently exploitative, the same principle should apply to New York City government. If it is not, City Hall should not selectively prohibit the practice when private companies such as Amazon use it.

Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s envoy and son-in-law, said Monday that Hamas will be given roughly 60 to 90 days to surrender its weapons and dismantle its military infrastructure under the administration’s Gaza plan, while stressing that Israel will retain the right to act against immediate security threats.

Kushner outlined the timeline during an interview with Fox News following an almost four-hour meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his team in Israel. The talks focused extensively on implementing President Trump’s plan for Gaza and addressing Israeli concerns about the proposed framework.

Asked about Netanyahu’s objections to the Board of Peace roadmap and whether the Israeli leader was being pressured to alter his position, Kushner suggested that some of the disagreement stemmed from how the proposal had initially been understood.

“I think that was his perception of the plan as he got it,” Kushner said. “I think today we had a very, very good meeting.”

Kushner said the lengthy discussion allowed the American and Israeli teams to examine the proposal in detail and work through issues that had caused concern in Jerusalem.

“I think there were some valid concerns that they raised that we were able to address, and we were able to go through some of the misunderstandings and misinformation that’s been out about it as well,” he said.

After meeting with Israeli PM Netanyahu on Gaza, Special Envoy Kushner told Fox News:

"We could be seeing progress in as little 30 days, hopefully on starting to take some of the weapons out, and hopefully filling in some of the tunnels as well in the next 60 to 90 days." pic.twitter.com/RKTyLsUcO1

— Trey Yingst (@TreyYingst) August 17, 2026

One point on which Kushner said the administration would not compromise is the connection between rebuilding Gaza and eliminating the terrorist infrastructure there. Reconstruction, he said, will not proceed while Gaza remains militarized.

“We’re very committed to the fact that we have a plan to rebuild Gaza, but we will not allow Gaza to be rebuilt until the demilitarization occurs,” he said.

“Nobody wants to put more money into a place that’s gone on for so long only for it to be taken over by terrorists or blown up again.”

At the same time, Kushner emphasized that the agreement would not tie Israel’s hands if the country faces an immediate danger.

“We’re also not going to restrict Israel’s right to defend itself if there are any imminent threats,” Kushner said.

According to Kushner, the first concrete steps toward disarming Gaza could begin within approximately one month, followed by broader action against Hamas’s weapons and tunnel network.

“We could be seeing progress in as little as 30 days, hopefully on starting to take some of the weapons out and hopefully filling in some of the tunnels as well in the next 60 to 90 days,” he said.

Kushner acknowledged that carrying out the plan would depend on cooperation from both Israel and Hamas, but argued that successful implementation would provide Israel with an enormous security benefit and described the framework as a “win-win situation.”

“If Hamas actually gives over the weapons and the tunnels willingly over the next 60 to 90 days, that obviously would be the elimination of a huge security threat for Israel, almost an unthinkable achievement,” he said.

Sources said US Maj.-Gen. Jasper Jeffers, who heads the International Stabilization Force, will be responsible for overseeing the transfer of Hamas’s weapons.

Kushner also laid out what could happen if Hamas fails to honor its commitments. In that event, he said, the terrorist group would demonstrate to the international community that its professed interest in peace was not genuine.

If Hamas refuses to follow through, Kushner said, “everyone will see that they’re not genuine about peace,” while Israel would receive “a lot more support from the US and others to go and finish the job in the appropriate way.”

Kushner was also questioned about his own recent meeting with Hamas officials and whether anything he heard convinced him that the terrorist organization genuinely intends to pursue peace.

“They said all the right things, but obviously it’s very, very hard to trust a terrorist organization that committed these terrible atrocities,” he said.

While Kushner characterized the discussion with Hamas representatives as “very cordial,” he made clear that Washington would measure the organization by concrete behavior rather than assurances made during negotiations.

“We’re going to give them a chance to perform, but it’s going to have to be based on actions and steps, and I hope it will be true,” he said.

The Fox News interview also turned to the Trump administration’s negotiations with Iran. Kushner said the president remains focused on using economic pressure against Tehran and has not wavered from his determination to prevent the Islamic Republic from acquiring nuclear weapons.

"Right now, they're not showing any interest in doing something that makes sense for us." Special Envoy Jared Kushner told Fox News about Iran. "They have to be willing to make a real deal." pic.twitter.com/gjueF6ndA6

— Trey Yingst (@TreyYingst) August 17, 2026

“President Trump’s been very, very, very clear on why he took the actions he took, which is he believes that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon,” Kushner said.

According to Kushner, Trump remains willing to strike an agreement if Tehran relinquishes its ability to develop a nuclear weapon. For now, however, he said the Iranian leadership is “not showing any interest in doing something that makes sense for us.”

Asked what is preventing the two countries from reaching an agreement, Kushner said the fundamental issue is whether Tehran is prepared to accept a substantive deal.

“They have to be willing to make a real deal.”

“President Trump wants to make a fair deal. That could be a win-win,” he continued, adding that Iran must accept “no nuclear weapons and no funding terror in the region.”

Kushner was additionally pressed about Trump’s disclosure that his administration maintains a back channel to senior officials in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Although he declined to discuss the specifics of those contacts, Kushner said communication between Washington and various elements of the Iranian government is taking place on an unusually extensive scale.

“The conversations between the US government and different areas of the Iranian government in all areas are probably more robust than it’s maybe ever been,” he said.

Kushner said maintaining those channels is particularly valuable because of the deep distrust between the United States and Iran, though he acknowledged that the ongoing discussions have yet to produce an agreement.

“President Trump’s going to be very patient,” he said. “He doesn’t want to rush to a deal. He’ll make the right deal when the right deal is ready. But we are having very positive and active conversations.”

{Matzav.com}

President Trump said Monday that he will not extend the 60-day framework agreement with Iran, signaling that the negotiating period established in June will be allowed to expire without a broader settlement while insisting that the United States now exercises “total control” over the Strait of Hormuz.

Asked by reporters whether his administration was seeking additional time for the Iranian framework arrangement, which was brokered by Pakistan in June, Trump gave a one-word answer.

“No,” Trump responded when questioned by reporters on whether he was pursuing an extension to the Iranian arrangement brokered by Pakistan in June.

Trump says the U.S. is not seeking an extension of the Iran MOU. pic.twitter.com/vO1fqS82vc

— Clash Report (@clashreport) August 17, 2026

The agreement had provided Washington and Tehran with a 60-day window to pursue negotiations toward a more comprehensive resolution of the conflict. That period is now nearing its end without the two countries reaching the wider agreement envisioned when the framework was established.

Trump said Iranian officials remain interested in reaching an accord but maintained that Tehran has yet to accept the conditions that he considers essential for any final deal.

“They want to make a deal, but they are not going to make the kind of a deal that I feel is necessary,” Trump said.

The president reiterated that preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon remains the central American objective and said there would be no compromise on that point.

“Look, we’re in there for one reason: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. You understand that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, and they won’t have a nuclear weapon,” he added.

Trump was also asked about his comments last week suggesting that the United States could declare the Strait of Hormuz American territory. Rather than retreating from the idea, he again embraced it, arguing that the US blockade has effectively placed the strategic waterway under American control.

“Well, I just think it’s a great idea,” the president said.

“I mean, we control it. We control it with the blockade. We have a blockade. We control it with the blockade, and I like the idea of declaring it a territory. We have total control over the Strait. Now, they can be a nuisance … But the blockade has been very effective.”

Trump said the American naval operation has succeeded in keeping oil moving through the region, with millions of barrels passing through the strategic shipping route each week.

“We are taking out – maybe that will stop, or maybe it will open up even further – we are taking out millions of barrels of oil a week,” he said.

The president tied the situation in the strait to declining oil prices and suggested that Washington still has the option of dramatically escalating its actions against Iran if circumstances require it.

“The strait is open, and the oil prices are coming down, and they will continue to come down unless we decide to do something far more drastic than we are doing,” he said, noting that Iran is “in big trouble.”

Iranian officials, meanwhile, have strongly rejected Trump’s assertions about American control of the Strait of Hormuz. After Trump raised the issue at a rally Friday, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi insisted that Tehran remains in command of passage through the waterway and said Iran’s restrictions would continue until the United States acknowledges its “strategic defeat.”

Gharibabadi directly challenged Trump’s claims in a social media post, asserting that the strategic waterway belongs to Iran and will remain under Iranian control.

“Once and for all, accept the reality: up to this point, you have suffered strategic and heavy defeats; the Strait of Hormuz has been Iranian, is Iranian, and will remain Iranian.”

The rhetoric escalated further on Shabbos when senior Iranian lawmaker Ebrahim Azizi mocked a recent security precaution involving Trump. The president had been transferred between aircraft inside a catering vehicle because of security concerns, and Azizi invoked that episode while issuing a warning.

“The US President ought to worry about his own security rather than his endless bluffing regarding the Strait of Hormuz; before he ends up hiding in a food truck,” posted Ebrahim Azizi, head of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security Commission.

Trump also addressed Oman on Monday amid its involvement in diplomatic efforts concerning Iran and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to shipping.

Asked whether he had grown frustrated with Muscat, Trump criticized Oman’s conduct but suggested that dealing with the US ally would pose little difficulty for Washington.

“No, I don’t think they behaved very well, but we’d handle them very easily, just like we do other things,” Trump stated.

[COMMUNICATED]

When architect Liran Shukrun, Partner and CEO of Primovitz-Bas, first encountered Givat Hashalvah nearly four years ago, the plan on paper did not yet reveal what the place could become. It looked familiar: another residential plan near Yerushalayim, another hillside with buildings arranged across it. But the land itself was saying something larger. The site sat on a high ridge, facing south, with rare topography, open views toward Yerushalayim, and on clear days, even the sea. The opportunity was not in the drawing. It was in the place.

For Liran, that is where architecture begins. A skilled architect can design a building. The harder work is understanding the story of a place: what belongs here, specifically here, and nowhere else. In Givat Hashalvah, that story began to emerge when the team understood the families this project was being created for: frum families, many from the Anglo world, looking to build a meaningful life in Eretz Yisroel with community, quality, and shared values around them.

That insight changed the master plan. The goal became to make community visible in the architecture itself. Cars, access roads, and technical systems were placed underground so the surface could belong to people. In their place came courtyards, paths, schools, shuls, parks, and shared spaces connected along an east-to-west axis that stitches the neighborhood together. Instead of life being pushed around the buildings, the buildings began to revolve around the life between them.

That is the story inside the plan. Givat Hashalvah is not arranged as a collection of homes with amenities attached. It is shaped as a neighborhood where walking, meeting, davening, hosting, learning, and raising children can happen naturally. The question was never only what could be built on the hill. It was what kind of life the hill was asking to hold.

Explore Givat Hashalvah → https://go.lyo.group/3LxM3tz

Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s special envoy, reportedly sought a detailed briefing on Israel’s upcoming elections during his current visit to the country, asking about Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu’s chances of victory and the possible coalition scenarios that could emerge after Israelis go to the polls.

Kushner arrived in Israel against the backdrop of regional tensions with Iran, the situation in Gaza and the ongoing fighting in Lebanon. But according to a report by Moriah Asraf of Channel 13, Israel’s domestic political landscape was another issue drawing considerable interest behind the scenes.

During a meeting with President Isaac Herzog, Kushner and members of his team reportedly requested an overview and analysis of the Israeli political map ahead of the election.

The American delegation sought information about the current balance of power between the parties, Netanyahu’s prospects of winning another term and the various political alliances that could determine the composition of the next government.

Kushner’s team was also reportedly interested in which parties would be prepared to join forces with one another and what types of governing coalitions could realistically be assembled following the election.

The assessment presented to the American officials was that, at this stage, there is no clear-cut outcome emerging from Israel’s political landscape and the election remains unsettled.

Meanwhile, President Trump himself addressed the possibility of becoming involved in Israel’s election during a conversation Monday with an American reporter.

Despite expectations among some Netanyahu allies — as well as speculation from the prime minister’s political opponents — that Trump could publicly throw his support behind a candidate, the president indicated that he has not yet made such a decision.

“Maybe I’ll support someone; for now, it’s appropriate that I don’t interfere,” Trump said.

Trump’s comments come after considerable speculation across Israel’s political spectrum that he would ultimately make a public endorsement in the campaign. For now, however, the president indicated that such an intervention is not currently planned.

Associates of Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu are reportedly preparing to launch an effort immediately following the Likud primaries to remove Chareidi party members who do not actually support or vote for Likud, amid growing concern over organized voting blocs influencing the party’s internal elections.

According to a report by Daniel Grovais on Kan 11, the planned “Likud cleanup” would seek to identify groups of registered party members who have expressed support for other political parties. The effort could also include invalidating entire organized membership drives.

The move is reportedly taking shape following cooperation between Chareidi Likud membership organizers and MK David Bitan involving voting “deals” in the party primaries. Netanyahu had until now reportedly allowed the practice to continue without publicly intervening.

At the same time, several prominent Likud ministers and MKs appeared on voting lists circulated by major Chareidi organizers who direct their members on how to vote and operate transportation networks bringing voters to polling stations.

Energy and Infrastructure Minister Eli Cohen, for example, appeared on a list associated with the Gerer chassidus, reportedly because of his support for facilitating travel to Uman for Rosh Hashanah.

Knesset Finance Committee Chairman Hanoch Milwidsky was included on lists distributed by several organizers, reportedly due to his work on the committee and his public support for the Chareidi community.

Justice Minister Yariv Levin also appeared on several recommended voting lists, reflecting Chareidi support for his judicial reform agenda and his campaign against Israel’s current judicial system.

{Matzav.com}

Sen. Rand Paul and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis are blasting Dr. Anthony Fauci and ABC News following claims by a former network correspondent that Fauci may have been involved in reviewing a 2021 report about the possibility that COVID-19 originated in a laboratory.

The controversy erupted after former ABC correspondent Terry Moran described how a report he prepared examining the lab-leak theory was substantially altered before it reached the air. Moran said his reporting included conversations with molecular virologists and officials from the Trump administration, along with an examination of evidence connected to the Wuhan laboratory.

Moran said that when the segment was returned to him following an internal review on the day it was supposed to air, the version he received bore little resemblance to what he had submitted.

“And it comes back to me and it is incomprehensible,” Moran said.

Asked during an appearance on “The Fifth Column” podcast who had been involved in reviewing his work, Moran responded: “Lawyers, standards, and — I was told — Fauci.”

Moran cautioned that he cannot independently confirm that ABC actually provided Fauci with the script. His assertion, he explained, was based on what he was told at the time about who participated in the review process.

Paul, a Kentucky Republican who repeatedly confronted Fauci during congressional hearings over the federal government’s pandemic response, quickly seized on Moran’s account as evidence of improper influence over the network’s reporting.

“The former Senior National Correspondent of ABC News recently admitted the network’s editorial independence took a back seat to the Anthony Fauci-led cover-up,” Paul wrote Saturday on X.

DeSantis also sharply criticized ABC over the allegation that Fauci was involved in the process.

“What a pathetic indictment of ABC News,” the Florida governor posted on X. “Letting Fauci of all people dictate coverage.”

According to Moran, ABC’s standards department had adopted the position at the time that raising the possibility of a laboratory origin for COVID-19 was potentially dangerous, making it exceedingly difficult to seriously explore the theory in the report.

Moran said the segment was ultimately loaded with so many disclaimers, caveats and legal qualifications that he chose not to watch the final version after it aired.

The possibility that COVID-19 emerged from a laboratory has remained the subject of intense scientific and political debate years after the pandemic began.

Subsequent congressional investigations revealed that Fauci was provided with drafts of a 2020 scientific paper supporting a natural origin for the virus after scientists had privately discussed the possibility that it could have originated in a laboratory.

Moran’s account is now fueling longstanding criticism among conservatives who contend that major news organizations were too willing during the pandemic to accept the conclusions of government public-health officials while dismissing or marginalizing competing theories.

Moran departed ABC in 2025 after publishing a social media post attacking White House adviser Stephen Miller. Since leaving the network, he has also acknowledged what he viewed as political bias in ABC’s coverage.

Writing in an essay, Moran said the network frequently failed to adequately represent pro-Trump viewpoints and acknowledged that ABC was biased, though he characterized that bias as largely inadvertent rather than deliberate.

For Paul and DeSantis, however, the latest allegations go beyond the broader question of ideological bias in the media. Moran’s account raises the question of whether one of the federal government’s most prominent public-health officials was permitted to influence how a major television network presented one of the central controversies surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic.

{Matzav.com}

[Video below.] President Trump welcomed 10-year-old Nathaniel Rai and the 16-year-old lifeguard who saved him from powerful waves off the California coast to the Oval Office, where the president praised the teenager as a hero — while joking that Rai was fortunate Trump himself had not been on duty that day.

Speaking directly to Rai about his rescuer, Ryder Williams, Trump said: “He’s a real hero. I don’t know if I’d do it.

“I wouldn’t, probably. You’re lucky I wasn’t on the service that day.”

Rai, dressed in a dark suit and maroon tie, sat on a gold couch alongside his father and Trump during the White House meeting. Williams sat across from them as the president recounted the dramatic rescue that captured widespread attention after video of it circulated online.

Trump arranged the meeting after publicly saying Williams deserved to receive a civilian honor for his actions. The president had previously announced on social media that he intended to invite the teenage lifeguard to the White House in recognition of his bravery.

Video of the late-July rescue showed Williams holding tightly to Rai as powerful waves repeatedly crashed over the two of them. At one point, both disappeared beneath the water before becoming visible again several seconds later as the wave pulled away.

Another lifeguard, Aaron Bohnen, eventually joined the rescue effort and helped Williams and Rai safely reach shore at Seabright Beach in Santa Cruz.

Trump first weighed in on the dramatic footage after his son Eric Trump shared a post about Williams and said the teenager deserved “the highest civilian honor”.

Rai’s father, Sumit, has also expressed profound gratitude to the teenager who saved his son.

“What he did, I can never repay. I’m forever grateful.”

The rescue occurred as California lawmakers were considering legislation that would formally classify lifeguards as first responders, according to NBC Bay Area.

Supporters of such a designation argue that officially recognizing lifeguards as first responders could provide them with greater professional recognition and resources, along with stronger workplace protections and improved benefits.

NBC Bay Area reported that some people it interviewed were surprised to discover that lifeguards did not already have official first-responder status. A Santa Cruz state senator, however, cautioned that formally establishing such a classification would involve a number of complicated questions.

“Of course, lifeguards are first responders, but first responders also go through this rigorous training, so you’d have to decide – because in the peace officer standards training you go through eight months of training – so you’d have to decide what’s appropriate here,” NBC Bay Area quoted Laird as saying.

“How does it work? How does it get designated? What training comes with it? Who pays for it?”

Luigi Mangione’s Manhattan murder trial will no longer begin next month, as his lawyers seek to have the state prosecution thrown out entirely following his unexpected guilty plea to federal charges stemming from the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.

Jury selection in the 28-year-old’s Manhattan Supreme Court case had been scheduled to get underway on Sept. 8.

That timetable was scrapped Monday when Justice Gregory Carro moved Mangione’s next court appearance to Dec. 10, effectively postponing the state trial indefinitely, according to court records.

Mangione’s attorneys are now seeking dismissal of the state charges based on his federal guilty plea, contending that another prosecution over Thompson’s killing would amount to “double jeopardy” by subjecting him to prosecution twice for the same crime.

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, however, has made clear that it intends to fight the defense effort and press forward with its prosecution.

Carro has established a briefing schedule for the dispute, directing Manhattan prosecutors to submit their arguments by Oct. 9. Mangione’s lawyers will then have until Oct. 30 to file their response.

The legal battle follows Mangione’s stunning decision last week to plead guilty to two federal stalking charges, each of which carries the possibility of life behind bars.

During the federal proceeding, Mangione explicitly admitted responsibility for Thompson’s killing.

“On the morning of Dec. 4, 2024, I shot Mr. Thompson in Manhattan, and he died,” the scion of a prominent Maryland family told the court.

Mangione is scheduled to receive his sentence in the federal case on Dec. 18, eight days after his next scheduled appearance in Manhattan Supreme Court.

The state prosecution remains pending in the meantime, with Mangione charged with second-degree murder and illegal weapons possession in connection with Thompson’s killing.

Ulrich Siegmund, branded “the most dangerous man in Germany” by the German weekly Der Spiegel, could soon make political history by becoming the first politician from the far-right AfD to lead a German state since World War II if current polling translates into votes.

Siegmund is heading the Alternative for Germany (AfD) ticket in Saxony-Anhalt ahead of regional elections set for early September. Polls show the party commanding significant support there, raising the possibility of an election result that could ultimately produce a government led by Siegmund.

The AfD has promoted its ambitions in the state under the slogan: Unser Gruß aus Sachsen-Anhalt an den Bundesparteitag: Das ist die Vision2026!

Der Spiegel placed Siegmund on its cover in an extraordinary feature describing him as “the most dangerous man in Germany,” pointing to his hardline views on immigration and minorities while highlighting broader concerns about the expanding influence of Germany’s far right. Siegmund dismissed the negative characterization and instead called the prominent coverage “excellent publicity,” subsequently using it as part of his own campaign.

The AfD has steadily expanded its political influence in recent years, with some of its strongest gains coming in eastern Germany. The party has attracted voters through its fierce opposition to immigration, European Union policies and Germany’s political establishment in Berlin. German security authorities have classified the AfD’s Saxony-Anhalt branch as a far-right organization subject to surveillance.

A Siegmund victory would represent a historic breakthrough for the AfD and an unprecedented development in Germany’s postwar political era, giving the party control of a state government for the first time.

Germany’s mainstream political parties are already confronting the prospect of an AfD-led government and are exploring alternative coalition arrangements designed to keep Siegmund from taking power. But with the election approaching, Siegmund and the AfD appear to be building momentum, potentially setting the stage for a dramatic shakeup of Germany’s political order.

{Matzav.com}

[COMMUNICATED]

Nineteen years ago, tragedy struck the Eckstein family when R’ Shlomo Tzvi Eckstein זצ״ל passed away, leaving behind eleven young children. Among them were his twin sons, Asher Anshel and Aharon Yosef, who were just six months old.

Their mother was left to raise eleven children on her own. Baruch Hashem, nine of the children have since married—and now, after nearly two decades, it is the twins’ turn to begin their own families.

Asher Anshel’s wedding will take place NEXT WEEK on August 24, 2026.

Aharon Yosef’s wedding will take place on October 26, 2026.

Two weddings. Just weeks apart.

As these two chashuve yesomim prepare to build their homes, the family and community are coming together to help make these simchos possible and allow both young men to begin married life with dignity and simcha.

We invite you to take part.

Every contribution, large or small, can make a real difference and help bring these two weddings to fruition.

Please donate today and help give these two yesomim the opportunity to enter their new lives with joy and dignity.

Donations can be made through the campaign. Donors’ Fund Tax ID: 11-3235771. Please make sure to designate the donation to the Eckstein account and write “Twin Weddings” in the memo.

May every person who helps bring simcha to these two yesomim be blessed with the fulfillment of the words:

אם אתה משמח את שלי אני משמח את שלך

Thank you for your generosity and support.

Tizku L’Mitzvos.

Please Donate today.

Dozens of passengers aboard a Blue Bird Airways flight bound for Crete were reportedly left sitting inside an aircraft without functioning air conditioning for nearly two hours Sunday, as temperatures inside the plane climbed and some passengers began feeling ill.

The passengers had already boarded the chartered aircraft at Ben Gurion Airport and were waiting on the tarmac for departure to the Greek island when the flight was delayed. With the ventilation system reportedly not functioning amid the intense August heat, conditions inside the cabin quickly deteriorated.

Footage from the aircraft showed parents attempting to cool their children and themselves using wipes and ice as they waited for the plane to depart.

One furious passenger described the conditions aboard the aircraft, saying: “We’ve been inside a closed plane for an hour and 40 minutes without air conditioning, with small children fainting. I’ve never seen anything like this in my life.”

The incident came amid significant congestion at Ben Gurion Airport. On Friday, unusually heavy traffic was reported at the airport, with approximately 90 flights accumulating within a period of just three hours.

The Israel Airports Authority attributed those delays to heavy air traffic and restrictions in European airspace, particularly over Greece, as well as the presence and operations of American aerial refueling aircraft. Officials denied reports that the disruptions were connected to a strike or staffing shortages.

Separately, El Al began selling tickets for flights to Vietnam approximately two months ago and has already sold more than 20,000 tickets to Israeli travelers. However, the airline currently lacks the necessary security authorization to operate the route, according to a report by Channel 13.

El Al confirmed that flights from Tel Aviv to Hanoi that were scheduled to begin in October have been canceled because the required approvals have not been granted by Israeli security authorities, including the Shin Bet.

The airline said the decision followed notification from Israeli security officials responsible for protecting Israeli aviation, operating under Shin Bet directives, that the necessary authorization could not be provided for the route to operate using Israeli aircraft and crews.

Israeli Transportation Minister Miri Regev accused El Al’s workers’ committee on Monday of mounting an effort to damage her standing in the Likud primaries, claiming the campaign against her is retaliation for her efforts to bring Wizz Air into the Israeli market and increase competition in air travel.

Speaking to reporters outside a polling station during the Likud primary election, Regev warned supporters that attempts were being made to push her lower on the party’s electoral slate.

“Anyone who tells you, ‘Miri Regev is strong,’ wants to weaken me,” Regev said. “You know that the El Al workers’ committee decided to knock me down the list. All because I decided to bring in Wizz Air.”

Despite the resistance she says she is facing, Regev insisted that she has no intention of abandoning the initiative to expand competition in Israel’s aviation industry.

“I said that I would bring down airfares, and that is what will happen,” she declared.

Regev said she would not allow pressure from organized labor to deter her from pursuing policies that she believes will benefit Israeli travelers.

“No workers’ committee will intimidate me or blackmail me,” the Transportation Minister added. “The citizens of the State of Israel are more important.”

{Matzav.com}

There was tremendous simcha and emotion in Yeshivas Brisk in Yerushalayim on Monday as the Rosh Yeshiva, Hagaon Rav Avrohom Yehoshua Soloveitchik, arrived at the yeshiva for the first time this Elul zman and delivered his shiur, following a difficult health period over the summer.

The Rosh Yeshiva’s arrival brought great joy and renewed hope to the talmidim and the entire Brisker olam after Rav Avrohom Yehoshua had been in serious condition during the summer months.

In recent days, word had begun circulating in the yeshiva that the Rosh Yeshiva was expected to resume delivering his regular shiurim. It was also learned that he is expected to stay in his new apartment, which was built adjacent to the yeshiva building.

Until Monday, however, there had been no definitive update, and the expectation was that the Rosh Yeshiva would begin delivering shiurim only later in the week.

To the great excitement of the talmidim, Rav Avrohom Yehoshua arrived Monday at the yeshiva and delivered the shiur, marking his first appearance in the yeshiva since the beginning of Elul zman.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyomin Netanyahu delivered a firm message to US Special Envoy Jared Kushner during a four-hour meeting Monday, insisting that Hamas must disarm and make concessions before Israel takes further steps under the American-backed 15-point Gaza peace plan, including withdrawing IDF forces from the Strip.

Kushner met with Netanyahu as Washington intensifies efforts to advance implementation of the plan. During their lengthy talks, the US envoy urged the Israeli premier to “not create obstacles” to moving the agreement forward, CNN reported, citing an Israeli source.

Netanyahu responded that progress cannot come at Israel’s expense, maintaining that Hamas must first give ground and surrender its weapons before Israel proceeds with additional provisions of the framework, including an IDF pullback from Gaza. The prime minister also reportedly told Kushner that advancing the plan ahead of the October Knesset elections could create political difficulties and damage his standing among his electoral base.

Despite those disagreements, the meeting produced an agreement to establish two joint working groups between Israel and the Board of Peace, the Prime Minister’s Office announced afterward. The groups will address separate components of the Gaza framework.

The Prime Minister’s Office stated: “The Prime Minister and Board of Peace had deep and constructive discussions. It was agreed to establish two working groups, one on disarmament and demilitarization of Gaza, which both Israel and the Board of Peace are determined should be prompt and completed before any reconstruction happens in Gaza. A second working group will focus on sanitation, clean water and other public health issues for the people of Gaza and which also impact the people of Israel.”

The principal disagreement between Washington and Jerusalem centers on the order in which the plan’s provisions would be carried out. The 15-point framework envisions an end to military operations, Hamas disarmament, the transfer of civilian control in Gaza to a Palestinian technocratic administration, a phased Israeli military withdrawal and the establishment of an international stabilization force.

The American proposal calls for Hamas’s disarmament and Israel’s withdrawal to advance simultaneously through a series of steps that can be independently verified. Israel has rejected that sequencing, insisting that its forces will not relinquish their positions in Gaza until Hamas has been fully disarmed. Jerusalem has publicly said it cannot accept the framework as it currently stands.

Hamas, meanwhile, has said that it accepts the broader framework. During recent negotiations in Egypt attended by Kushner, mediators pressed the terror group to surrender its weapons and relinquish responsibility for governing Gaza.

An official familiar with the discussions with Hamas said the demands being presented to the group include measures aimed at preserving the ceasefire, transferring administrative authority to the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza and ensuring that Hamas is excluded from any future governing structure. Hamas would also be required to dismantle its weapons and military infrastructure, while an international stabilization force enters Gaza, Israel carries out corresponding withdrawals and humanitarian aid and reconstruction are accelerated.

Even as the Board of Peace presses Israel to move ahead, its officials reportedly believe that Jerusalem is already adhering in practice to portions of the understandings. Those officials view some of the Israeli government’s public rhetoric as driven by domestic political considerations and are therefore placing greater emphasis on Israel’s actions on the ground.

Kushner’s recent meeting in Egypt marked the first time he had met with senior Hamas figures since the October 2025 ceasefire agreement. Participants included Hamas political bureau chief Khalil al-Hayya, Egyptian intelligence chief General Hassan Rashad, Qatari minister Ali al-Thawadi and a senior Turkish official.

Artificial intelligence could push nearly one in five existing American jobs out of the workforce within the next five years, according to an internal analysis from investment giant Bridgewater Associates, whose top executives are warning that Washington must act quickly to prevent the technology’s economic promise from triggering major social upheaval.

The warning was issued by Bridgewater executives Greg Jensen and Nir Bar Dea, who say the United States is approaching a pivotal moment in determining how to handle the enormous changes expected from AI. They argue that policymakers can either prepare for the disruption now or face potentially severe public and political consequences later.

Jensen and Bar Dea laid out their case in an Aug. 14 New York Times opinion column titled “This Is One of the Most Important Policy Decisions of Our Lifetime,” describing artificial intelligence as a technology capable of generating enormous prosperity while simultaneously posing serious risks to economic and social stability.

The executives believe AI could unleash a “productivity miracle” that dramatically increases economic output and raises living standards. But they maintain that achieving that outcome will depend on government policies designed to spread the financial benefits of the technology across society while guarding against its potential hazards.

Jensen serves as Bridgewater’s managing chief investment officer, while Bar Dea is the investment firm’s chief executive officer.

The two executives oversee Bridgewater, a $102 billion investment firm that has itself made significant investments in artificial intelligence and reshaped portions of its operations in an effort to take advantage of the rapidly advancing technology.

That makes their recommendations particularly noteworthy, since some of the policies they are advocating could create new expenses for Bridgewater itself as well as for the investment interests represented by the firm.

Their warning extends beyond the immediate prospect of individual Americans finding themselves unemployed because their work can be performed by artificial intelligence.

Instead, Jensen and Bar Dea are concerned that mass job displacement could threaten broader social cohesion if most of the wealth created by AI flows primarily to corporations, investors and workers possessing highly specialized skills.

They cite earlier periods of dramatic economic change, including the upheaval that accompanied industrialization, to argue that extraordinary economic growth can also fuel intense political and social unrest when its benefits and opportunities are disproportionately concentrated.

According to Jensen and Bar Dea, Bridgewater’s internal research suggests that AI could displace 18% of the jobs currently held by American workers over the coming five years.

The executives concede that technological change will also create new employment opportunities, particularly in fields built around direct human interaction and relationships, including nursing and hospitality.

Even with those new jobs, however, they caution that the period of adjustment between the old economy and the emerging AI-driven one could itself produce significant social disruption.

Among their most unusual policy recommendations is the creation of an AI token tax.

Artificial intelligence models process information through units called tokens, with businesses using enterprise AI systems frequently paying according to the volume of tokens they consume.

Jensen and Bar Dea argue that the use of AI tokens can be viewed as broadly comparable to paying wages for work performed by machines.

They contend that because the existing tax structure is largely built around taxing human labor, businesses effectively receive an economic incentive to replace employees with machines.

Under their proposal, money collected through an AI token tax could help lower taxes imposed on human labor while also funding a nationwide program giving Americans an ownership stake in artificial intelligence companies.

The plan would have the federal government purchase equity in leading US-based AI companies and then distribute those shares directly to American citizens.

Instead of Washington permanently controlling those investments, individual Americans would hold the shares themselves, allowing them to participate financially in the wealth generated as the artificial intelligence industry expands.

Jensen and Bar Dea are also advocating substantially stronger safety regulations governing advanced artificial intelligence.

They say those safeguards should apply not merely when sophisticated AI models are released to the public, but throughout the development and deployment of the technology.

Their concerns center on the possibility that increasingly independent AI systems could acquire dangerous abilities, operate outside the boundaries established by their creators or be adapted by others for harmful purposes.

Jensen and Bar Dea ultimately argue that Washington does not have unlimited time to decide how it will respond to the transformation already underway.

Their central message is that the United States should continue promoting aggressive AI development while simultaneously making certain that ordinary workers and citizens receive a meaningful share of the resulting economic benefits.

If policymakers fail to strike that balance, they warn, a technological revolution with the potential to generate extraordinary prosperity could instead widen economic inequality, ignite political resistance and introduce dangers that may prove far more difficult to contain once artificial intelligence becomes deeply embedded throughout the economy.