Feed aggregator

President Donald Trump announced Monday that individuals who report election fraud resulting in arrests and criminal convictions will receive a $1 million reward, unveiling the extraordinary incentive just eight days before Americans head to the polls for the November 3 midterm elections. The offer applies to allegations involving both previous elections and the upcoming congressional contests, although the administration has not yet explained how the payments would be funded or administered.

Trump disclosed the proposal in a message posted to his Truth Social account, encouraging Americans to come forward with information about suspected election wrongdoing and promising substantial financial compensation if their reports ultimately result in successful criminal prosecutions.

“Anybody reporting Voter Fraud in the past Elections, or the upcoming 2026 Midterm Election, will be paid $1,000,000 upon the arrest and conviction of those that created the Fraud! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP,” he wrote on Truth Social.

The announcement immediately raised questions about how such a program would operate. Trump did not identify which federal department would oversee the rewards, whether Congress would need to authorize funding, or what procedures individuals would be required to follow when submitting allegations.

It also remains unclear what standards of evidence would be necessary for a person to qualify for the payment, how officials would resolve situations involving multiple informants reporting the same alleged offense, or whether convictions obtained in state courts would qualify alongside federal prosecutions.

The president’s proposal comes shortly after his administration introduced a separate financial incentive program designed to encourage whistleblowers to expose fraud involving federal funds and taxpayer-supported government services.

Last week, Trump and Vice President JD Vance announced an initiative under which individuals providing credible information about certain types of government-program fraud could receive financial rewards. The effort is part of the administration’s broader campaign to identify improper expenditures and pursue criminal cases against individuals accused of exploiting federal assistance programs.

On October 20, the Justice Department formally introduced its Fraud Whistleblower Incentive Program, which offers payments ranging from $10,000 to $30,000 to individuals whose information contributes to criminal charges in eligible investigations.

Unlike traditional whistleblower arrangements that can require participants to wait until criminal proceedings and related financial recovery efforts have concluded, the new program allows qualifying rewards to be issued after charges are filed, subject to approval by Justice Department officials.

The Treasury Department has allocated $25 million to support the initiative, providing a dedicated source of funding for payments to individuals who help federal investigators identify and prosecute fraud involving government resources.

The arrangement also permits participants to pursue additional compensation under other federal whistleblower programs, potentially allowing individuals whose information produces substantial recoveries to receive separate awards through existing legal mechanisms.

The initiative focuses particularly on fraud affecting federally funded healthcare services and government benefit programs. Officials have identified hospice care, home healthcare, daycare operations, and specialized assistance services as areas warranting heightened scrutiny because of concerns about fraudulent billing and misuse of public money.

Vance, who heads the administration’s Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, has been assigned a leading role in coordinating efforts to identify waste, abuse, and criminal misconduct across federal benefit programs.

During the White House announcement last week, Trump also discussed the possibility of compensating whistleblowers with a commission amounting to 1% of the fraud uncovered through their information.

Monday’s proposed election-fraud reward, however, appears to differ significantly from that arrangement. The president’s statement did not indicate whether the $1 million payment would be incorporated into the recently established whistleblower initiative or whether the administration intends to create an entirely separate mechanism for election-related complaints.

The timing of Trump’s announcement coincides with increased Justice Department enforcement activity targeting allegations of unlawful voting and fraudulent voter registration.

On October 19, federal prosecutors announced election-related charges against 28 foreign nationals in California, including allegations that individuals who were not American citizens had unlawfully participated in federal elections or falsely represented their citizenship status on official documents.

The cases included accusations of illegal voting, fraudulent registration activity, and false statements submitted during immigration naturalization proceedings.

As part of a coordinated enforcement operation known as Operation Protect the Vote, federal authorities arrested 11 individuals in California on the day the charges were announced. The effort involved all four United States attorney’s offices in the state, reflecting a coordinated approach to investigating suspected violations of federal election laws.

The defendants face different potential penalties depending on the charges filed against them. Certain felony offenses carry maximum prison terms of five years, while misdemeanor violations involving unlawful voting by noncitizens can result in sentences of up to one year in federal prison.

All defendants are presumed innocent unless prosecutors establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Federal law generally prohibits individuals who are not United States citizens from participating in elections for president or members of Congress. The restriction applies to foreign nationals residing in the country unlawfully as well as lawful permanent residents who have not completed the naturalization process.

The administration’s election-enforcement initiatives have also generated debate over the prevalence of illegal voting and the reliability of allegations involving voter fraud.

Research compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice, a voting-rights organization affiliated with New York University School of Law, has found that documented instances of noncitizen voting and other forms of election fraud are relatively uncommon compared with the enormous number of ballots cast in American elections.

The organization has argued that some allegations initially presented as evidence of deliberate election misconduct ultimately turn out to involve clerical mistakes, misunderstandings about voter eligibility, or errors made by election administrators.

Voting-rights advocates have also warned that unsupported allegations of widespread fraud can undermine public confidence in election results and create additional barriers for eligible voters.

Additional reporting indicates that Trump personally repeated the $1 million offer while speaking with journalists Monday before boarding Air Force One for a campaign rally in Corinth, Mississippi.

“I’m also going to be issuing a $1m bonus or reward, or whatever you want to call it, for anybody that reports voter fraud, leading to the arrest and conviction of somebody,” Trump told reporters.

The White House was subsequently asked to clarify the financial and administrative details of the proposal but provided no additional explanation beyond the president’s public statement. As of Monday evening, there was no publicly identified agency responsible for reviewing claims or distributing the promised payments.

The announcement also drew attention to Trump’s comments during the previous week’s introduction of the broader fraud-reporting initiative. At that event, the president suggested that he would personally resolve disputes concerning who deserved compensation when multiple individuals claimed responsibility for exposing the same fraudulent activity.

“I will be the arbitrator of all of these decisions,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “In other words, I’ll determine whether or not the person is deserving, and I’ll determine, and I will be very generous.”

It remains uncertain whether the president intends to exercise similar authority over the new election-fraud rewards, which are substantially larger than the payments currently authorized under the Justice Department’s existing whistleblower program.

The administration’s latest initiative also follows congressional efforts to strengthen voter-identification and citizenship-verification requirements. Trump has supported the SAVE America Act, legislation that would impose additional federal requirements for establishing citizenship when registering to vote and require identification at the polls. The measure passed the House earlier this year but has repeatedly encountered opposition in the Senate.

The proposed reward system has a precedent at the state level. Following the 2020 presidential election, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick offered financial rewards for information leading to voter-fraud convictions. One of the individuals who ultimately received a payment was Eric Frank, a Democratic election worker in Pennsylvania who reported a Republican voter accused of casting two ballots, including one in his son’s name.

That earlier program offered considerably smaller payments, with Patrick initially announcing rewards of at least $25,000 for qualifying information.

The Justice Department’s latest election prosecutions have also expanded beyond California. On Monday, federal authorities announced charges involving 48 noncitizens in Pennsylvania, California, Florida, New York, and Nevada, covering allegations of illegal voting, fraudulent voter registration, and false statements connected to citizenship applications.

Those cases involve alleged misconduct across several election cycles and do not establish the existence of a coordinated national fraud operation. Nevertheless, they have provided the administration with additional examples of election-law violations that federal prosecutors are pursuing.

{Matzav.com}

Millions of Israelis are heading to the polls Tuesday in a closely watched election for the 26th Knesset, with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu seeking another term in office and former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot emerging as one of his principal challengers. The election, the first since the October 7, 2023, Hamas massacre and the subsequent war, is taking place amid intense political divisions, uncertainty over the composition of the next government, and particular attention to voter turnout in the chareidi community following the prolonged controversy over the drafting of yeshiva bochurim.

Polling stations opened at 7 a.m. across Israel, allowing 7,331,981 eligible voters to participate in an election featuring 36 political lists competing for the Knesset’s 120 seats. A total of 12,018 polling stations have been established throughout the country, with election officials preparing for a full day of voting before the first exit polls are released Tuesday evening.

The number of eligible voters has increased by 543,177 since the previous Knesset election in November 2022, reflecting substantial growth in Israel’s electorate over the past four years. In that election, turnout reached 70.63%, with approximately 4.8 million Israelis casting ballots.

One of the central questions facing political analysts Tuesday is whether participation will exceed the previous election’s level and how differences in turnout among Israel’s various communities will influence the final distribution of Knesset seats.

The contest centers on the struggle to assemble a governing coalition capable of commanding the support of at least 61 Knesset members. Netanyahu is leading the Likud party, while Eisenkot heads the Yashar party. Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett is also competing through the Beyachad electoral alliance formed with Yair Lapid.

Other major participants include Shas, headed by Aryeh Deri; United Torah Judaism; Yisrael Beiteinu, led by Avigdor Lieberman; the Democrats, headed by Yair Golan; Otzma Yehudit, led by Itamar Ben-Gvir; and Religious Zionism, which is running together with the Zehut party.

The United Arab List, known as Ra’am, and the Joint List are also participating after Israel’s Supreme Court overturned decisions that would have prevented them from appearing on the ballot.

Although 38 electoral lists initially received approval to participate, two subsequently withdrew from the contest. They were Blue and White, headed by Benny Gantz, and the Achi movement, leaving 36 lists competing for parliamentary representation.

The electoral threshold remains 3.25% of valid ballots, meaning that parties failing to obtain that share of the vote will receive no Knesset seats. The threshold could prove especially consequential for smaller parties, where relatively modest differences in voter support may determine whether an entire list enters the Knesset or is excluded.

Votes cast for parties that fail to cross the threshold will not translate into parliamentary representation, potentially altering the balance between political blocs and affecting which party leaders can assemble a coalition.

For the chareidi community, Tuesday’s election carries particular significance following years of controversy over the status of yeshiva students and the government’s efforts to address military conscription.

According to figures from Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, approximately 684,000 eligible voters living in Israel are chareidim, representing roughly 10.5% of the country’s resident voting population.

In the 2022 election, Shas secured 11 Knesset seats, while United Torah Judaism won seven. Both parties are now seeking to preserve their parliamentary strength amid dissatisfaction in parts of the chareidi community over the draft controversy and questions about the effectiveness of chareidi representation in the outgoing government.

Party officials are expected to devote considerable attention to turnout throughout the day, particularly in major chareidi population centers such as Bnei Brak, Yerushalayim, Beit Shemesh, Modiin Illit, and Elad.

Election headquarters will monitor participation figures in these communities and work to encourage eligible voters to cast their ballots before polling stations close.

Within United Torah Judaism, attention is also focused on whether the party can increase its representation from seven to eight seats. That possibility is being discussed against the backdrop of internal political tensions and public debate over the party’s accomplishments during the previous Knesset term.

The controversy surrounding the draft of yeshiva bochurim has become one of the most consequential issues affecting chareidi political participation. The dispute has generated criticism of government policy, tensions between coalition partners, and questions about how voters will respond to the positions taken by their elected representatives.

The election will therefore serve as an important measure of political participation within the chareidi community, with party leaders closely examining turnout figures as they become available.

Throughout the day, senior political figures are expected to visit polling stations and campaign headquarters as their parties conduct final efforts to mobilize supporters.

Netanyahu is scheduled to cast his ballot in Yerushalayim at approximately 11 a.m. Eisenkot is expected to begin his day with visits to Ofakim and Nir Oz, two communities closely associated with the events of October 7.

United Torah Judaism chairman Yaakov Asher is expected to vote in Bnei Brak before accompanying leading Gedolei Yisroel to polling stations as part of the party’s Election Day activities.

Beyond the regular civilian voting locations, special arrangements have been made to accommodate soldiers, hospitalized patients, and other eligible voters who cannot easily reach conventional polling stations.

The IDF has prepared approximately 850 polling stations for military personnel, and some soldiers have already participated through early voting procedures.

Nearly 100,000 workers are expected to take part in administering the election, including polling-station personnel, election officials, security staff, and others responsible for maintaining the voting and counting process.

Most polling stations will remain open until 10 p.m., although voting in smaller communities and at certain special polling locations is scheduled to conclude at 8 p.m.

Israel’s Central Elections Committee is expected to release periodic turnout updates throughout the day, allowing observers to compare participation with previous elections and identify differences among population groups.

At 10 p.m., when the final polling stations close, Israel’s major television networks are scheduled to release their initial exit polls, offering the first estimates of how the 120 Knesset seats may be distributed.

The official counting process will begin as voting concludes, with preliminary results expected to emerge during the overnight hours.

However, the final outcome may remain uncertain until the counting of special ballots is completed. These include the double-envelope ballots used by soldiers and other voters casting their ballots outside their regular polling districts.

The Central Elections Committee has up to eight days to publish the official results, setting November 4 as the deadline for completing the process.

Election officials have also introduced additional arrangements for the 2026 vote, including expanded accessibility measures, security monitoring, and procedures intended to protect the integrity of the ballot.

The Central Elections Committee has prepared approximately 450 million ballot slips and deployed some 15,000 cameras as part of its election oversight system. Of the 12,018 polling stations, 6,209 have accessibility provisions, including 3,621 specially adapted stations for voters with mobility difficulties.

Another change this year concerns the publication of turnout information. The Central Elections Committee plans to release participation figures for individual regular polling stations at least four times during Election Day, in addition to nationwide statistics. These figures will provide a more detailed picture of voting patterns as the day progresses, although they will not indicate which parties voters are supporting.

Election officials have also imposed restrictions on the transfer of voter-participation information to political parties. Polling-station representatives are prohibited from removing information identifying who has voted or transmitting such details to campaign organizations, a departure from practices permitted during earlier elections.

For voters traveling to their assigned polling stations, special transportation arrangements are in effect. Intercity bus routes exceeding 15 kilometers and Israel Railways services are available without charge during the designated Election Day period. Train passengers must obtain a free ticket, while ordinary urban bus routes and light rail services remain subject to their usual fares.

Voters are generally required to cast their ballots at their assigned polling stations and present an accepted form of identification, such as an Israeli identity card, valid passport, or driver’s license. Those who have not received a voter notification can still participate, provided they are registered and report to the correct location.

Special voting provisions are also available for residents evacuated from their homes, patients in medical institutions, prisoners, and individuals with mobility limitations. Voters who arrive at a polling station before its official closing time are entitled to cast their ballots even if they must wait until after the scheduled closing hour.

Once the counting is completed, the process of forming a government will begin. President Isaac Herzog will consult with representatives of the elected parties before assigning the task of forming a coalition to the Knesset member he determines has the best prospect of securing parliamentary support.

That individual will generally have up to 42 days to establish a government. If the effort fails, additional procedures allow another candidate to attempt to assemble a coalition, potentially extending the period of political uncertainty beyond Election Day.

The official results are expected to be published by November 4, although the initial distribution of seats should become clearer as ballots are counted over the coming days.

For Israel’s chareidi community, particular attention will remain focused on the performance of Shas and United Torah Judaism and the eventual composition of the next coalition. The unresolved questions surrounding the draft of yeshiva bochurim, the status of Torah learners, and the relationship between the government and the chareidi parties will remain central issues once the election results are known.

As Israelis cast their ballots, the immediate question is how the electorate will divide the Knesset’s 120 seats. The longer political process will determine which parties can reach an agreement on forming a government and how the disputes that dominated the outgoing Knesset will be addressed in the next one.

{Matzav.com}

He lost his father before turning 3. His widowed mother raised him and his siblings alone.

Now, as he prepares for his wedding, his mother cannot afford even the basic necessities!

PLEASE HELP THIS YESOM GET MARRIED WITH DIGNITY! CLICK HERE TO DONATE.

A federal appeals court on Monday rejected an emergency request by President Donald Trump’s administration to prevent California from counting mail-in ballots submitted by individuals appearing on a federal list of more than 20,000 registered voters suspected of being noncitizens. The ruling represents a significant setback for the administration’s efforts to tighten election safeguards just days before the November 3 midterm elections.

The decision by the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit allows California to continue processing and counting ballots under its existing election procedures, despite concerns raised by federal officials that thousands of people on the state’s voter rolls may not be legally eligible to participate in federal elections.

The dispute comes as Republicans and Democrats prepare for a closely watched congressional election that will determine control of the House of Representatives and the Senate. President Trump has made election integrity a major priority of his administration, particularly regarding allegations that noncitizens have been improperly registered or permitted to vote.

The California litigation represents an unusually direct attempt by the federal government to intervene in the administration of a state election. According to Reuters, it was the first instance in which the Trump administration sought a court order preventing a state from counting ballots associated with individuals identified through federal citizenship screening.

The Justice Department did not specify how many people appearing on its list of more than 20,000 potentially ineligible voters had actually returned mail-in ballots. That uncertainty became an important consideration in the dispute over whether the courts should intervene before Election Day.

Federal prosecutors had previously announced, on October 19, that 28 individuals identified in connection with election-related investigations were facing criminal charges. The alleged offenses included unlawful voting by noncitizens, submitting fraudulent voter-registration documents, and providing false information during naturalization proceedings.

California, which has the largest population of any American state, is also one of the Democratic Party’s strongest electoral bases. Its 52 seats in the House of Representatives make it particularly important in the national struggle for congressional control.

Democrats are attempting to regain the House majority from Republicans, making California’s congressional contests a central component of their electoral strategy. The administration’s challenge to the state’s mail-ballot procedures therefore comes at a politically sensitive moment.

Since returning to the White House, Trump has repeatedly criticized California’s immigration and law-enforcement policies, particularly its designation as a sanctuary state. The president has argued that restrictions on cooperation between state authorities and federal immigration agencies have weakened enforcement efforts and created opportunities for abuse.

Trump has also repeatedly alleged that California’s immigration policies have contributed to election irregularities, including the possibility that individuals without American citizenship have been able to register and cast ballots.

Studies and investigations examining noncitizen voting have generally found relatively few documented cases compared with the number of ballots cast nationwide. A Reuters investigation published in July identified 129 instances in which federal authorities had charged noncitizens with illegal voting. The investigation found that a number of those cases appeared to involve misunderstandings about eligibility or administrative mistakes rather than deliberate attempts to commit election fraud.

The latest legal battle began on October 15, when the Justice Department filed a lawsuit in federal court in Los Angeles seeking emergency intervention in California’s ballot-counting procedures.

Federal attorneys asked the court to require state election officials to identify and separate ballots received from individuals on the administration’s list. Under the proposed arrangement, those ballots would remain excluded from the official count until authorities independently confirmed that the voters were American citizens.

The administration argued that such precautions were necessary to prevent potentially unlawful ballots from being included in the election results. California officials, however, maintained that the federal government had not established a sufficient factual basis for imposing extraordinary restrictions on the state’s voting procedures.

After seeking relief in the district court, the Justice Department turned to the Ninth Circuit with an emergency request for expedited consideration, hoping to obtain a ruling before the election.

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s office strongly opposed the federal intervention, arguing that the state already maintains extensive procedures designed to prevent ineligible individuals from registering or voting.

State attorneys also challenged the reliability of the information used by federal investigators to identify suspected noncitizens, contending that the administration’s allegations were based on “suspect data.”

“At best, this litigation is a reckless political stunt,” lawyers for California Secretary of State Shirley Weber said in an Oct. 20 court filing. “At worst, it threatens to disenfranchise thousands of Californians this election.”

Voting-rights organizations have similarly warned that federal efforts to identify noncitizens through comparisons of government databases could mistakenly classify naturalized American citizens as ineligible voters.

Such errors, critics argue, could result in legitimate voters being removed from registration lists or having their ballots subjected to additional scrutiny, particularly when election officials have limited time to verify citizenship information.

The Justice Department has defended its broader election-enforcement campaign as necessary to ensure compliance with federal laws prohibiting noncitizens from participating in elections for president and Congress.

Federal officials have warned election administrators in all 50 states that knowingly permitting ineligible noncitizens to remain registered or participate in federal elections could expose them to criminal liability.

The administration has also pursued a separate series of lawsuits seeking access to detailed voter-registration records from states and the District of Columbia. Those requests have included sensitive personal information that state officials argue should not be broadly disclosed to federal authorities.

According to the reported figures, the Justice Department has sued 30 states and Washington, D.C., over refusals to provide complete voter-registration information, with courts ruling against the administration in 26 of those cases.

Additional details from Monday’s ruling show that the appeals court’s decision rested primarily on procedural grounds rather than a final determination of whether the individuals identified by the federal government were eligible to vote.

In a 2-1 decision, the three-judge panel concluded that the Justice Department had attempted to obtain appellate intervention before the district court had been given a reasonable opportunity to consider its emergency application.

Judges Mark Bennett, appointed by Trump, and Gabriel Sanchez, appointed by President Joe Biden, formed the majority. They concluded that the administration had moved too quickly to the appellate court despite the lower court having scheduled a hearing on the matter.

The majority also questioned the urgency of the administration’s request, pointing out that federal authorities had been investigating the suspected registration irregularities for months before filing suit shortly before Election Day.

The judges characterized the administration’s claimed emergency as partly a “self-constructed one,” citing delays in bringing the litigation and the practical difficulties of changing ballot-processing procedures after voting had already begun.

Judge Patrick Bumatay, another Trump appointee, dissented. He argued that the federal government had a legitimate and substantial interest in preventing ballots cast by ineligible noncitizens from influencing federal elections.

“The question — does the federal government have the power to stop this potential attack on the integrity of our elections? Under both federal law and the Constitution, the answer must be ‘yes,’” Bumatay wrote. “Simply, the federal government has a sovereign interest in safeguarding federal elections and ensuring that the votes of noncitizens do not undermine our electoral results.”

Court documents also provided new information about how the administration assembled its list. Federal immigration authorities initially examined more than 175,000 California voter-registration records before narrowing the results to approximately 20,000 individuals whom investigators considered highly likely to be noncitizens.

The screening involved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and Homeland Security Investigations, which compared voter information against immigration records and other databases.

California officials challenged the accuracy of that process. According to a preliminary review conducted by Los Angeles County election authorities, many individuals flagged by federal investigators appeared to have been born in the United States, while others had inactive or canceled registrations.

The review raised questions about whether the federal screening system had incorrectly identified eligible American voters or included individuals whose registration status had already changed.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta welcomed Monday’s decision, portraying it as a victory for state election officials and voters who might otherwise have faced additional obstacles to having their ballots counted.

The legal confrontation is not over. U.S. District Judge David O. Carter is scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday in Los Angeles on the Justice Department’s underlying request for an order requiring California to separate the disputed ballots.

That hearing could determine whether the administration obtains any immediate relief before Election Day, although the appellate ruling leaves California’s existing procedures in place for the time being.

The outcome could also have implications beyond California, as the Trump administration continues its nationwide effort to obtain voter-registration records and identify individuals suspected of participating unlawfully in federal elections.

{Matzav.com}

The Justice Department announced Monday that federal prosecutors have brought election-related charges against 48 noncitizens across five states, accusing the defendants of offenses ranging from illegally casting ballots in federal elections to submitting fraudulent voter registrations and falsely representing themselves as American citizens. The cases involve alleged violations connected to multiple election cycles, including the 2020, 2022, and 2024 elections.

The prosecutions, announced less than two weeks before the November 3 midterm elections, involve individuals in Pennsylvania, California, Florida, New York, and Nevada. Federal authorities said the defendants face a variety of charges, with some accused of voting despite lacking American citizenship and others alleged to have made false statements on official documents to obtain voting privileges or immigration benefits.

According to the Justice Department, the investigations uncovered several categories of alleged misconduct, including unlawful participation in federal elections, false declarations of citizenship on voter-registration forms, and misrepresentations made during the naturalization process.

The cases do not all involve the same conduct or election. Some concern ballots allegedly cast in presidential or congressional contests, while others involve voter-registration applications or statements submitted to federal immigration authorities. The charges represent allegations that prosecutors must establish in court, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

In Pennsylvania, federal prosecutors charged several foreign nationals with allegedly participating in federal elections despite being ineligible to vote. Among those identified was Alfredo Santiesteban, a 73-year-old Cuban national whom the Justice Department described as being unlawfully present in the United States.

Other Pennsylvania defendants were identified as lawful permanent residents who allegedly cast ballots in the 2022 or 2024 elections. Although green-card holders are legally permitted to reside and work in the United States, they generally remain ineligible to vote in federal elections until obtaining American citizenship.

California authorities announced cases involving both alleged election violations and false statements during immigration proceedings. Some defendants face felony charges stemming from accusations that they misrepresented their voting history or citizenship status on applications for naturalization.

One defendant, Omar Alexander Munoz, a 72-year-old citizen of Belize, was accused of registering to vote while falsely identifying himself as an American citizen. Prosecutors further alleged that he participated in multiple elections before subsequently providing inaccurate information under oath during the naturalization process.

The allegations against Munoz illustrate how an individual’s voting history can become relevant to immigration proceedings. Federal naturalization applications require applicants to disclose certain information about previous voting activity and claims of American citizenship, and knowingly providing false information can result in criminal prosecution.

In Florida, the Justice Department announced charges against six individuals in the Middle District of the state. The defendants include nationals of Cuba, Ecuador, Canada, and Brazil who allegedly voted in federal elections held in 2022 or 2024 or falsely claimed American citizenship in connection with voter registration.

The Florida prosecutions involve allegations that individuals who lacked the legal right to participate in federal elections nevertheless submitted registration documents or cast ballots in contests reserved for American citizens.

New York was also among the states where federal prosecutors brought charges. The cases there include allegations that noncitizens filed fraudulent voter-registration applications and subsequently participated in federal elections.

In Nevada, prosecutors charged a Filipino national with allegedly casting a ballot in an election that included races for president, the United States Senate, and the House of Representatives. Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in elections for those offices, regardless of whether they are legally residing in the country.

Across the five states, the allegations vary considerably. Certain defendants are accused specifically of voting as noncitizens, while others face charges involving false citizenship declarations, fraudulent registration activity, or inaccurate statements made to federal immigration officials.

The announcement brings together prosecutions involving conduct over several years rather than a single election or coordinated operation. The Justice Department did not establish in the information summarized in its announcement that the defendants were acting together or participating in an organized election-fraud scheme.

The Justice Department’s detailed announcement identified nine defendants in Pennsylvania, 28 in California, six in Florida, four in New York, and one in Nevada. California accounted for the largest share of the prosecutions, with cases filed across four federal judicial districts.

Among the Pennsylvania defendants was Yehuda Peer, a 30-year-old Israeli national and lawful permanent resident accused of voting in the 2024 general election. Prosecutors also charged Polish national Artur Kopacz, 50, with allegedly voting in both the 2022 and 2024 general elections.

In California, the allegations extended to voting activity as recently as 2026. Prosecutors accused Camino Giles Jiménez, a 51-year-old Mexican national and lawful permanent resident, of participating in three American elections, including the June 2026 primary.

Another California defendant, Maricela Nazarín González, 43, was accused of registering to vote in 2020 while identifying herself as an American citizen and subsequently casting ballots in elections held in 2022, 2024, and 2025.

The department also identified several individuals accused of registering and voting on the same day. Giezell Viduya Adawag, a 41-year-old Filipino national, allegedly registered on Election Day in November 2024, falsely certified that she was an American citizen, and cast a ballot. Indian national Kamlesh Navnitlal Shah, 67, was similarly accused of registering and voting that day.

In New York, prosecutors alleged that three lawful permanent residents in the Eastern District had submitted fraudulent registration applications and voted in the 2024 federal election. The defendants were identified as Irish national Eoin Cranney, 35, Guyanese national Ronald Sheldon Baird, 47, and Jamaican national Karlene Daniels Samuels, 55.

According to the Justice Department, Cranney and Baird acknowledged during voluntary interviews with federal investigators that they were not American citizens when they voted. The announcement also described an admission concerning Samuels, although the department’s account contained an apparent error in identifying the individual who made that statement.

A separate prosecution in the Northern District of New York involved Marva Cook, a 66-year-old German national and lawful permanent resident accused of voting in an election that included congressional races.

In Nevada, federal authorities charged Jullie Ann Sumalinog Moore, a 44-year-old Filipino national and lawful permanent resident, with allegedly voting in an election featuring presidential and congressional contests.

The charges carry different potential penalties depending on the alleged offense. In California’s Eastern District, for example, prosecutors specified that voting by a noncitizen in a federal election is a misdemeanor carrying a maximum sentence of one year in federal prison. Other defendants face felony allegations involving false statements or unlawful attempts to obtain naturalization.

The announcement also follows additional election-related prosecutions publicized by the Justice Department earlier this month. On October 19, federal authorities announced charges against 28 foreign nationals in California in cases involving election offenses and false statements. That same day, New Jersey prosecutors announced that a Jamaican national who was unlawfully present in the United States had admitted to voting illegally in a federal election.

On October 16, the department separately announced charges involving 16 noncitizens in North Carolina, New York, and Idaho, including allegations of illegal voting and false claims of American citizenship.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump delivered a forceful defense of the United States’ military campaign against Iran during a campaign rally in Mississippi on Monday, declaring that Washington had no alternative but to confront Tehran’s growing military capabilities and nuclear ambitions. The president warned that Iranian missiles could eventually threaten major American cities, insisted that Iran had initiated the decades-long confrontation with the United States, and maintained that military action was necessary regardless of the potential economic consequences.

Speaking to supporters, Trump described Iran as a technologically capable adversary whose advances in missile development had become increasingly alarming to American officials. At the same time, he praised the effectiveness of the U.S. military campaign, saying American forces had inflicted devastating damage on Tehran’s military infrastructure.

“Iranians make great weapons. They are very smart people, but we beat the s–t out of them,” the President stated, adding, “Iranians now have a missile that essentially reached Europe. They weren’t supposed to. We said, ‘Where …. did they get that?'”

Trump on Iran:

We did a little ceasefire, which I never liked very much. I considered it a waste of time.

The ceasefire was just a waste of time. pic.twitter.com/qNbi30xKv3

— Clash Report (@clashreport) October 26, 2026

Trump suggested that Iran’s missile program had progressed beyond what American officials previously anticipated, raising concerns that weapons capable of reaching European targets could eventually be developed to strike the United States itself.

“And they’d hit our cities. They’d hit San Diego. They’d hit Los Angeles. They’d hit our cities too. So somebody had to do it. It had to be done,” Trump stated.

The president rejected the suggestion that Washington bore responsibility for initiating the conflict, arguing that the Islamic Republic’s longstanding hostility toward the United States had made confrontation unavoidable.

“We didn’t start the war with Iran. Iran started the war with us,” he added.

Trump also expressed frustration with an earlier ceasefire agreement, describing the temporary halt in hostilities as an unsuccessful diplomatic effort that had merely postponed the confrontation. He said he had been skeptical of the arrangement from the beginning but had allowed diplomatic advisers an opportunity to pursue it.

“We did a little ceasefire, which I never liked very much. I considered it a waste of time. The ceasefire was just a waste of time, but you like to listen to professionals. We wanted to be nice, but it was just a waste of time as far as I’m concerned,” he continued.

According to Trump, preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons remained the overriding consideration behind his administration’s military decisions. He argued that the dangers associated with allowing Tehran to develop a nuclear arsenal outweighed the financial and geopolitical costs of continued military operations.

The president acknowledged that he had expected the confrontation to produce a potentially dramatic increase in global oil prices, but said he had been prepared to accept those consequences rather than allow Iran’s nuclear program to advance unchecked.

He said “we really had no choice” and acknowledged that he had anticipated a potentially significant increase in oil prices as a consequence of the conflict.

“I thought the price of oil was going to go much, much higher, and I was fully prepared to do it…it should’ve been a long time ago.”

Trump also placed the current confrontation within the broader history of Iranian-American relations, pointing to the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and the decades of hostility that followed. He accused the Iranian regime of supporting violence against American personnel and contributing to the deaths of U.S. citizens over many years.

“They were killing our people for years,” Trump said.

His remarks came as the administration continued weighing the possibility of another round of military operations against Iranian targets, even as diplomatic contacts raised the prospect of a negotiated arrangement.

Over the weekend, Trump repeatedly declined to reveal whether he intended to authorize additional strikes, arguing that publicly disclosing operational decisions in advance would be irresponsible.

Asked Saturday about the possibility of renewed attacks, the president confirmed that military action remained an option but emphasized that negotiations could also produce an agreement acceptable to Washington.

“Let me tell you, while we’re thinking about doing it, and maybe tomorrow, do you really think I’m going to tell you? If I’m going to do it, and there’s a possibility I will, there’s also a possibility we’ll have a nice, big, beautiful agreement. They want to make a deal. But the problem is, will they hold the deal?”

Trump’s comments reflected the administration’s dual approach of maintaining military pressure while leaving open the possibility of a diplomatic settlement. The president has repeatedly questioned whether Tehran would comply with any agreement, citing his longstanding concerns about the Iranian government’s reliability.

On Sunday, however, Trump provided a more definite answer when reporters asked whether American forces would strike Iran that day. Speaking before departing for a campaign appearance in Michigan, he ruled out an immediate attack.

“The answer is no. There will not be a strike today,” he stated.

Later, in an interview with FOX2 Detroit, Trump made clear that he was unwilling to prioritize a quick conclusion to the conflict over securing what he considers a lasting solution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

The president warned that allowing the Islamic Republic to acquire nuclear weapons would create dangers far greater than the economic disruption already associated with the conflict, including the possibility of catastrophic attacks.

“You want to see problems? You want to see not only energy problems but death problems? Let them have a nuclear weapon because they will use it,” Trump said. “And, I have to do that first.”

Trump also indicated that he was prepared to pursue negotiations without imposing an artificial deadline, arguing that the objective should be a durable agreement rather than a temporary political accomplishment.

“I’m going to make a great deal. I’m a longterm person; I’m not a short term person,” the President said.

The latest developments suggest that Washington is approaching another critical decision over Iran, with military preparations continuing even as regional governments attempt to prevent a renewed outbreak of large-scale fighting.

Iranian officials said Sunday that indirect negotiations with the United States were continuing, but insisted that Tehran would not abandon its negotiating positions simply because Washington threatened additional strikes. The statements reflected the continuing gulf between the two governments over the terms of a possible agreement.

Diplomatic activity has also intensified across the Middle East. Senior representatives from Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan traveled to Tehran on Monday for discussions intended to reduce tensions and prevent another military confrontation involving Iran, the United States, and Israel.

The delegation included Saudi Defense Minister Khalid bin Salman, Pakistani Army Chief Asim Munir, and Turkish intelligence chief Ibrahim Kalin. Their visit followed other regional diplomatic efforts aimed at finding a way to end the conflict and restore stability to vital shipping routes.

A major obstacle remains the Strait of Hormuz, where competing American and Iranian restrictions have disrupted international maritime commerce and energy shipments. The strategic waterway has become a central issue in negotiations, with Tehran seeking relief from American economic pressure while Washington demands guarantees concerning maritime access and Iranian military activity.

{Matzav.com}

The BBC has agreed to pay £400,000 to an award-winning Jewish documentary filmmaker who accused colleagues of antisemitic conduct and claimed she was driven out of her position after speaking out about hostility toward Jews and Israel following the October 7, 2023, Hamas massacre. The settlement, reached without an admission of wrongdoing, has renewed scrutiny of the British broadcaster’s internal culture and its treatment of Jewish employees.

Lucie Kon, 57, a veteran documentary producer whose work has received major international recognition, including Oscar and Emmy honors, alleged that her workplace became increasingly hostile after the Hamas attacks in southern Israel. Kon, who has relatives living in Israel, said that her Jewish identity and support for Israel suddenly became points of contention among coworkers.

According to Kon, colleagues openly condemned people who identified as Zionists, including herself, as “evil” and disputed her description of Hamas as a terrorist organization, despite the group’s responsibility for the October 7 atrocities.

She recalled being confronted with the assertion that “if you want to call Hamas terrorists then you have to call Israel terrorists, too” and being encouraged to “think about what drove Hamas to do what they did”.

Kon maintained that the situation deteriorated further after she raised concerns through the BBC’s internal complaint procedures. Rather than receiving the protection and support she had sought, she alleged, she was kept away from the workplace for an extended period, prevented from carrying out her professional responsibilities, and eventually lost her position during an organizational restructuring.

The dispute culminated in legal proceedings over her dismissal, which the broadcaster resolved by agreeing to pay her £400,000, approximately $535,000. The BBC did not acknowledge liability as part of the agreement, and some of the settlement money will ultimately come from funds collected through the television licence fee paid by British households.

Despite agreeing to the substantial payment, the corporation has not issued an apology to Kon or accepted her allegations that she experienced antisemitism while employed there.

Kon told The Telegraph that she had spent more than two decades at the BBC without encountering significant problems connected to her religion or background. That experience, she said, changed abruptly after the terrorist attacks in Israel, which transformed the atmosphere in her workplace.

“It was like having Jew stamped on my forehead,” she recalled.

One of the most troubling disputes, according to Kon, involved discussions about coverage of the October 7 massacre at the Nova music festival, where Hamas terrorists and other attackers murdered hundreds of people and committed other atrocities against civilians.

Kon alleged that colleagues wanted a proposed documentary about the massacre to “contextualize” the killings by examining the circumstances surrounding the attackers and presenting their motivations in a sympathetic light.

She also described hearing a coworker characterize as “disgusting” a visit by then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to a Jewish school, where he had gone to demonstrate solidarity with Britain’s Jewish community and reassure students and families amid growing fears of antisemitism.

When Kon suggested producing a documentary examining the October 7 attacks, she said she was told that she could not oversee the production because, as a Jewish woman, she was considered “too partial” to handle the subject objectively.

“They tried to stop me doing my job because I’m a Jew,” she said.

Kon subsequently consulted a senior BBC manager and filed an official grievance describing the incidents and her concerns about antisemitism within the organization. The broadcaster conducted an internal investigation but ultimately dismissed her complaint. Her attempt to challenge that determination through an appeal was also rejected.

Her employment situation later became more precarious when the BBC reorganized the department in which she worked and abolished her position. Although she applied for another job that was substantially similar to her previous role, she was not selected.

Kon believes that her willingness to challenge the attitudes she encountered, identify herself publicly as a Zionist, and demand action against antisemitism contributed directly to the loss of her career at the broadcaster.

“I think I became a problem. I think I made too much noise about being a Jew inside the BBC. I stood up for my community. I was open about being a Zionist. The BBC says, bring your authentic self to work. And I did. And I lost my job as a result.”

The case is believed to represent the first settlement involving a former BBC employee who alleged antisemitic behavior by colleagues, potentially making it a significant development in the growing debate over how the broadcaster addresses complaints of anti-Jewish discrimination.

Kon has also expressed concern that her experience was not isolated. She maintains that other Jewish staff members have departed the organization after encountering similar difficulties and that the underlying problems have not been adequately addressed.

In response to questions about the settlement and Kon’s allegations, the BBC declined to discuss the specifics of her employment dispute but insisted that it maintains strict standards prohibiting discrimination and antisemitic conduct.

“While we do not comment on individual staffing matters, anti-Semitism in any form is not tolerated at the BBC.

“If allegations or concerns are raised, they are taken seriously and investigated in accordance with our policies. We have robust procedures in place to deal with any behaviour that is contrary to our values.”

The financial settlement comes against the backdrop of sustained criticism directed at the BBC over its reporting on Israel, Hamas, and the Gaza conflict. Critics have accused the publicly funded broadcaster of applying inconsistent standards to Israeli and Palestinian claims, failing to adequately scrutinize information originating from terrorist organizations, and producing coverage that they contend reflects an anti-Israel bias.

One controversy erupted in November 2023, when the BBC incorrectly reported that Israeli soldiers were targeting medical personnel during military operations near Gaza’s Shifa Hospital. The broadcaster subsequently acknowledged the error and apologized for its reporting.

Another major dispute concerned the BBC’s coverage of the October 2023 explosion at Al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza. Initial reporting and commentary suggested Israeli responsibility, but subsequent evidence presented by the Israel Defense Forces indicated that the blast had resulted from a failed rocket launch by Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The BBC later conceded that “it was false to speculate” about the cause of the explosion before sufficient evidence was available.

More recently, the broadcaster faced another wave of criticism over its documentary “Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone,” after it emerged that the child narrator featured in the production was the son of a senior Hamas official.

The revelation raised questions about the documentary’s editorial oversight, the information provided to viewers, and whether the production team had adequately investigated the backgrounds of those involved in the program.

Following an examination of the controversy, the BBC acknowledged that the documentary contained “serious flaws” and accepted that its editorial procedures had fallen short of the standards expected of the broadcaster.

Further reporting has revealed additional details about Kon’s professional accomplishments and the circumstances surrounding her departure. She served as an executive producer of “We Will Dance Again,” the documentary examining the Nova festival massacre that received an Emmy Award in 2025. She was also involved in “Mr Nobody Against Putin,” which won the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature in 2026.

Kon’s employment at the BBC ended in April 2026, shortly after the Oscar victory. She has alleged that the corporation subsequently diminished the prominence of her name in the film’s credits, although the settlement reportedly includes provisions intended to give her contribution greater recognition.

The producer also helped establish a support group for Jewish BBC employees following October 7 and participated in discussions with then-director-general Tim Davie about concerns within the organization. Among the issues raised was the broadcaster’s reluctance to explicitly characterize the October 7 massacre as a terrorist attack.

According to additional accounts of her experience, Kon’s formal complaint was submitted in January 2024. By March of that year, she had been instructed to stop attending the office following a breakdown in her working relationship with a colleague involved in the dispute.

Kon said the prolonged conflict took a serious toll on her physical and emotional health. She subsequently required medical treatment and took time away from work as the disagreement with her employer continued.

The BBC has maintained that her position was eliminated as part of a broader restructuring of its Storyville documentary operation. The changes included a planned reduction in documentary commissions and the creation of a new staffing structure, for which Kon unsuccessfully applied.

In a more detailed response to the controversy, the broadcaster emphasized that its internal procedures had not substantiated Kon’s allegations of antisemitism. It nevertheless acknowledged deficiencies in the way her case had been handled and recognized the impact on her.

“We are grateful that Ms Kon acknowledges that the BBC is not institutionally antisemitic. The BBC processes did not uphold any of Ms Kon’s allegations of antisemitism. However, the outcome acknowledged shortcomings and the personal impact on Ms Kon. We would like to acknowledge that Ms Kon was a valued member of staff with many years of dedicated service to the BBC.”

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump unleashed a blistering response to Barack Obama on Monday after the 44th president ridiculed his White House renovations by comparing the executive mansion to a Cheesecake Factory operated by Saddam Hussein. Trump accused Obama of neglecting the historic building during his presidency and said the criticism demonstrated his predecessor’s poor judgment.

The exchange erupted as both men were making appearances in the final stretch of the midterm election campaign, with Obama campaigning for Democratic candidates and Trump traveling to Mississippi to rally Republican voters.

Speaking with reporters at Joint Base Andrews before departing Washington, Trump took direct aim at Obama’s remarks, rejecting the suggestion that his extensive changes to the White House had diminished the appearance of the presidential residence.

“For you to say it’s a Cheesecake Factory — that just shows why you were a lousy president,” Trump declared.

He then expanded his criticism beyond the building itself, questioning Obama’s intelligence and his record in office.

“We have to explain that to Obama because he doesn’t understand it because he’s not a smart guy,” the president continued. “He’s not smart at all because of the way he ran the country. Only a stupid person would run the country like that.”

Trump’s response followed Obama’s appearance at a Democratic campaign rally in Ohio on Saturday, where the former president used humor to attack Trump’s ambitious remodeling efforts.

Obama joked that Trump “should be on HGTV,” a reference to the television network known for home renovation and real estate programs.

“He’s got the White House looking like Saddam Hussein opened a Cheesecake Factory,” Obama told the crowd.

The remark combined a reference to the late Iraqi dictator with a comparison to the restaurant chain known for its elaborate decor and unusually extensive menu. It was aimed at Trump’s preference for gold ornamentation and other decorative changes throughout the presidential complex.

Trump, however, argued that his renovations were necessary to preserve and improve one of the country’s most recognizable landmarks.

He claimed that Obama had failed to pay sufficient attention to the building’s physical condition during his eight years in the White House, allowing maintenance problems to accumulate.

“He doesn’t notice dirt and filth that hadn’t been cleaned, where the walls hadn’t been cleaned for years. He doesn’t notice areas that haven’t been painted,” Trump said.

The president continued his attack by suggesting that Obama had overlooked visible deterioration that should have been addressed.

“Guys like Obama don’t see it. You don’t see dirt. He doesn’t see filth. He doesn’t see broken ornaments on a building.”

Trump’s renovations have attracted considerable attention because of their scale and their departure from the appearance of several familiar White House spaces.

Among the most significant projects has been the demolition of the East Wing to make room for a large ballroom, an undertaking that has generated controversy over the preservation of the historic complex.

Other changes have included repairs and repainting of the columns along the North Portico, alterations to the Rose Garden that replaced much of its lawn with a paved surface, and an extensive redesign of the Oval Office featuring gold-colored fixtures and decorative elements.

Trump has consistently defended the improvements as necessary investments in the White House, maintaining that the building should reflect the prestige of the American presidency while remaining properly maintained.

“I’ve taken care of the White House. I fixed it with the finest artisans in the world,” he said. “We have to explain to Obama that the White House is a symbol of America, and it has to be maintained properly.”

The White House joined the dispute on social media, turning the restaurant comparison into an opportunity to promote the administration’s record.

“Since we’re talking about The Cheesecake Factory … The only thing bigger than the menu is the list of President Trump’s accomplishments,” the official White House account posted.

The message was accompanied by an image designed to resemble a restaurant menu, with various administration initiatives presented as selections. Among the accomplishments highlighted were the creation of more than one million private-sector jobs and tax changes affecting tips and overtime earnings.

The reference to the restaurant’s menu was deliberate. The Cheesecake Factory is famous for offering an enormous selection of dishes, with its menu typically running approximately 20 pages and featuring roughly 250 items.

The restaurant chain unexpectedly became a subject of national political debate after Obama’s remarks, with some conservatives accusing him of looking down on an establishment popular with ordinary Americans. Others defended the joke as criticism of Trump’s decorative tastes rather than of the restaurant’s customers.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent took the exchange a step further Monday by visiting a Cheesecake Factory restaurant in Washington, D.C., for lunch.

Speaking with reporters outside the restaurant, Bessent turned the architectural criticism back on Obama, taking aim at the design of the Obama Presidential Center under construction on Chicago’s South Side.

“This is the man who built the museum who looks like Darth Vader’s tomb,” Bessent said. “I had a great meal. I always have a great meal. I would tell the Martha’s Vineyard set to give it a try.”

Bessent’s reference to Martha’s Vineyard was directed at the upscale Massachusetts island where Obama and his wife maintain a residence. The island does not have a Cheesecake Factory location.

The Treasury secretary also disclosed that he had ordered his usual meal, a French Dip Cheeseburger. He later continued the exchange on social media by recommending the chain’s Cheeseburger Spring Rolls to Obama.

The Obama Presidential Center itself has attracted criticism over its unusual architectural design. The large, angular concrete-and-stone structure has been compared by some observers to the Death Star from the Star Wars films, while critics have nicknamed it the “Obamalisk.”

The dispute also drew attention to the political messaging behind Obama’s original remarks. During his Ohio appearance, the 44th president had criticized Trump for devoting attention to construction projects while Americans continued to express concerns about the cost of living.

Obama was campaigning in Cleveland for Democratic Senate candidate Sherrod Brown and gubernatorial candidate Amy Acton when he made the remarks. His comments about the White House were part of a broader speech attacking the Trump administration’s economic record and urging voters to consider those issues in the November midterm elections.

The exchange was not the first time Obama had mocked Trump’s preference for extravagant interiors. At the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Obama made jokes about Trump’s decorative tastes while Trump was still a businessman and television personality.

Trump, meanwhile, expanded on his defense of the White House renovations during a Monday evening campaign rally in Corinth, Mississippi, where he spent several minutes discussing the building’s condition and the improvements he had undertaken.

The president described repairs involving damaged plaster, cracked columns, missing architectural ornamentation and broken tiles. He also discussed plans for a new ballroom and other changes to the White House grounds, arguing that the work was necessary to preserve the appearance and condition of the presidential complex.

Trump maintained that overseeing the renovations had not distracted him from his responsibilities as president, describing the work as something he enjoyed and found relaxing.

The controversy came as public opinion remained divided over Trump’s construction projects. A Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll found that 59% of respondents believed the president was spending too much time on the renovations, compared with 27% who considered the amount of attention appropriate and 11% who believed he should devote more time to them.

For Trump, however, the criticism appeared to have reinforced his determination to defend the changes. He insisted that maintaining the White House was a responsibility attached to the presidency and that the improvements would benefit the building long after his administration.

The clash also reflected the increasingly personal tone of the midterm campaign, with Obama using Trump’s renovation projects as a symbol of what he considered misplaced priorities and Trump responding with attacks on Obama’s presidential record and judgment.

By Monday evening, a joke about a restaurant chain had escalated into a dispute involving the president, his predecessor, the Treasury secretary, the White House’s official social media operation and the architectural legacy of both administrations.

President Donald Trump on Monday dismissed reports that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had asked the White House for an additional endorsement ahead of Tuesday’s Israeli election, insisting that no such conversation had taken place while offering strong praise for Netanyahu’s leadership and his handling of Israel’s security challenges.

The president addressed the matter after being questioned about a report published Sunday by Axios, which claimed that Netanyahu’s office had been lobbying the Trump administration to publicly reaffirm its backing of the prime minister as Israelis prepared to head to the polls.

“No, I never spoke to him about it,” Trump responded.

“I think he has done a very good job as prime minister under very trying conditions,” the President added.

Trump on Netanyahu:

Netanyahu has done a very good job as prime minister under very trying conditions. pic.twitter.com/gpgdwg7gIM

— Clash Report (@clashreport) October 26, 2026

Trump’s remarks followed his decision on Sunday to again throw his political weight behind Netanyahu, reposting an endorsement he had issued the previous week and making another direct appeal to Israeli voters to return the prime minister to office.

In his latest message, Trump portrayed Netanyahu as a vital American ally and pointed to the two leaders’ cooperation in confronting Iran, particularly the military campaigns that he credited with severely weakening Tehran’s armed forces, political leadership, and economy.

“To the people of Israel, to those who haven’t seen it, I am attaching the Endorsement I gave one week ago to your Prime Minister, Bibi Netanyahu. As everyone is aware, including the enemy, Bibi and I have had a great relationship in winning together. I did the Venezuelan attack, one of the most successful Military Operations in History but, before that, we did Operation Midnight Hammer, stopping the World’s Number One State Sponsor of Terror from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon. Then we did Operation Epic Fury, and Iran now has No Navy, No Air Force, and both their Military and Economy are in shambles, including the fact that Iran’s Inflation is at 301%. The Naval Blockade has precluded them from getting Oil, and two levels of leadership, both Military and otherwise, are gone.”

Trump followed that assessment with an explicit election appeal, describing Netanyahu as an exceptional leader during wartime and arguing that Israel and the United States must continue working together to complete their campaign against the Iranian threat.

“When you go to the Polls please remember that Bibi has been an outstanding Warrior Prime Minister! Israel was called The Little Satan, with the United States being called The Big Satan, by some very evil people. There can no longer be the chant heard around the World of ‘Death to America, Death to Israel,’ and there won’t be. Vote for Bibi Netanyahu for Prime Minister, we have to finish the job that we started!”

The president’s initial endorsement, released the previous Sunday, had similarly emphasized Netanyahu’s importance to Washington’s regional strategy, particularly the administration’s determination to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and rebuilding its military capabilities.

Trump also suggested that a change in Israeli leadership could disrupt the partnership between the two countries and leave the United States facing a greater burden in dealing with Tehran.

“If Israel has the wrong Leader, which would be anyone other than Bibi, America will have to do this work ourselves, and I am not inclined to do so,” Trump warned.

Netanyahu subsequently released a video expressing appreciation for the president’s endorsement and reaffirming their common objective of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The exchange has placed the relationship between Trump and Netanyahu squarely in the spotlight during the final hours of Israel’s election campaign, with the American president making clear that he regards the prime minister as an essential partner in the two countries’ continuing confrontation with Iran.

Additional reporting has provided a more detailed picture of the dispute. According to The Jerusalem Post, American officials maintained that Netanyahu and individuals close to Trump had been making an intensive effort to obtain another presidential endorsement after the initial statement failed to generate a substantial improvement in Netanyahu’s standing in election surveys.

Axios reported that Trump and Netanyahu had spoken twice over a three-day period and that Netanyahu had personally proposed language for further statements of support. The report also claimed that the Israeli leader had suggested arranging interviews between Trump and Israeli journalists to reinforce the president’s endorsement before Election Day.

The Likud party rejected the allegations that Netanyahu had sought another endorsement, while Trump’s Monday comments appeared to support the Israeli prime minister’s position. Speaking to reporters before traveling to a campaign rally in Mississippi, Trump also emphasized that he had personally issued both statements of support.

The controversy comes as Netanyahu faces a closely contested election in which surveys have suggested that his existing coalition could fall short of the 61 Knesset seats necessary to form a government. Opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot has emerged as a major challenger, although polling has also raised questions about whether the opposition could assemble a governing majority.

Trump’s intervention represents an unusual degree of direct involvement by an American president in an Israeli election. His original endorsement on October 18 was particularly significant because he had declined for months to publicly back Netanyahu despite repeated questions about his preferences.

The president previously explained that he had deliberately waited until closer to the election to announce his support, telling Axios, “I was always going to do that. I just didn’t want to do it too soon.”

Asked at the time whether he could work with another Israeli prime minister, Trump left the question open, responding, “Maybe I will, maybe I won’t. Who wants to take the chance?”

Netanyahu has made his relationship with Trump a central theme of his reelection campaign, presenting their cooperation against Iran as evidence that his continued leadership is essential to Israel’s national security. During a televised appearance Sunday night, Netanyahu described the relationship as exceptionally close and suggested that additional military action against Iran could follow if he remains prime minister.

“US President Donald Trump has come with a friendship that has never existed before between an Israeli prime minister and an American president. And it is doubtful we will ever have such a friendly president again,” Netanyahu said. “He has another two years, and he says he is calling on you to vote for me.”

Netanyahu also indicated that Trump was prepared to pursue further measures against Tehran, describing the possibility of action “that would finally, finally, remove the Iranian threat”.

Despite their public expressions of solidarity, reports have indicated that some senior Trump administration officials have grown frustrated with Netanyahu over differences concerning Iran and other regional issues. Axios reported that certain presidential advisers believe Washington could potentially advance its Middle East objectives more effectively under a different Israeli government.

Nevertheless, Trump has chosen to make an unmistakable public commitment to Netanyahu during the closing days of the campaign, tying his endorsement to the two leaders’ record of military cooperation and their shared position on Iran.

With Israeli voters heading to the polls Tuesday, the president’s denial of Netanyahu’s reported lobbying efforts has added another dimension to an already contentious campaign. Whatever discussions may have occurred privately, Trump has made clear that he wants Netanyahu to remain in office and regards their partnership as central to his administration’s Middle East strategy.

{Matzav.com}

A 56-year-old Marine Corps veteran from Arizona has been sentenced to 38 months in federal prison after being convicted of threatening to assassinate President Donald Trump and Kamala Harris during the 2024 presidential election and the weeks that followed. The defendant, Rene Ortiz, delivered written threats to two federal courthouses, including a declaration that he intended to “execute” whichever candidate emerged victorious in the election.

Federal prosecutors announced the sentence Monday, following Ortiz’s conviction by a jury on three felony counts involving threats against individuals protected under federal law. The case involved two counts of threatening successors to the presidency and one count of threatening a former president.

Ortiz, a resident of Casa Grande, Arizona, a city situated between Phoenix and Tucson, made the threats as the country prepared for the 2024 presidential election and the subsequent transfer of power. His statements targeted both Trump and Harris, indicating that he intended to act against the winner regardless of which candidate prevailed.

According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona, Ortiz first appeared at the federal courthouse in Phoenix on November 5, 2024, the day Americans went to the polls to elect their next president.

He submitted a written document threatening to “execute the newly elected [President of the United States],” a statement prosecutors said was directed at both presidential candidates.

Several weeks later, Ortiz appeared at another federal courthouse, this time in Tucson, where he delivered an additional written threat concerning the upcoming presidential inauguration.

In that communication, he threatened to shoot “the incoming fraudulent elected [President of the United States]” during the inauguration ceremony, according to federal authorities.

The repeated threats prompted an investigation by the United States Secret Service, whose agents questioned Ortiz about his statements and whether he intended to carry them out.

During an interview with investigators, Ortiz acknowledged that he had written and submitted the threatening documents. According to reporting by Arizona radio station KTAR, he also told agents that he intended to shoot the president-elect unless certain demands were satisfied.

Federal authorities arrested Ortiz on January 17, 2025, just three days before Trump was sworn in for his second presidential term.

Investigators learned that Ortiz had been involved in a longstanding dispute with the Department of Veterans Affairs concerning educational benefits he believed the agency owed him.

Ortiz claimed that the VA had promised to cover the cost of his education if he resigned from a position with the department. According to his account, he left the job and enrolled in school, only to discover that the agency would not provide the reimbursement he believed had been guaranteed.

That disagreement apparently became a central grievance underlying his increasingly threatening communications with federal officials.

Court documents also revealed that Ortiz had made disturbing references to the assassination attempt against Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13, 2024, when a gunman opened fire during a campaign rally, grazing Trump’s ear and killing an attendee.

According to KTAR, Ortiz submitted a separate filing in which he appeared to seek permission to aim at the presidential candidate’s head rather than his ear, an apparent reference to the earlier shooting.

The prosecution presented its case during a four-day federal trial, arguing that Ortiz’s repeated written threats constituted serious criminal conduct regardless of whether he ultimately attempted to carry them out.

Ortiz’s defense attorney disputed that characterization, maintaining that the defendant suffered from significant psychiatric problems and had never genuinely intended to assassinate either political figure.

A licensed psychologist testified on behalf of the defense that Ortiz had been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and borderline personality disorder, conditions the defense argued were relevant to understanding his behavior and the nature of his statements.

The public defender maintained that Ortiz was a mentally ill individual expressing grievances through alarming language rather than someone preparing to commit an actual assassination.

The jury nevertheless found Ortiz guilty on all three felony counts, concluding that the government had established the elements of the charged offenses.

Additional court records reveal that Ortiz’s threats were accompanied by an unusual legal campaign in which he attempted to involve the federal judiciary in his personal grievances and even sought to alter the 2024 presidential ballot.

In September 2024, approximately two months before the election, Ortiz filed a civil lawsuit requesting that both Trump and Harris be removed from the presidential race. He proposed that he be placed on the ballot as a presidential candidate instead, with President Joe Biden serving as his running mate.

The documents Ortiz subsequently submitted to federal courthouses became increasingly explicit. His Election Day filing identified a specific military-style rifle and ammunition, while the November 25 document described a potential attack on the inauguration from a considerable distance.

In the second filing, Ortiz claimed he was “entitled to shot (sic) the incoming fraudulent elected POTUS from 300 or 666 yards away with 666 rounds for an M-16A2 service rifle at the inauguration on Jan. 20th, 2025.”

Another document contained an apparent reference to the Butler assassination attempt, requesting permission “for him to make an attempt to shot (sic) at the candidate with an M-16A2 service rifle with a magazine of 3 rounds from a distance of 300 or 500 yards, the rounds targeting the head not the ear of the candidate.”

The specificity of those statements became an important element of the government’s case, particularly because Ortiz repeatedly submitted the documents through official federal court channels rather than limiting his remarks to private conversations.

On December 5, 2024, Secret Service agents interviewed Ortiz at the agency’s Phoenix field office. He acknowledged preparing the threatening communications and, when questioned about whether he intended to shoot the incoming president, replied, “if my demands are not met.”

The interview also provided investigators with details about his dispute with the Department of Veterans Affairs, which Ortiz believed had failed to honor a financial commitment concerning his education.

Ortiz’s attorneys maintained throughout the trial that his conduct reflected serious psychiatric difficulties rather than a genuine plan to commit violence. They pointed to his military background, mental health diagnoses, and unusual court filings in arguing that his threats should not be interpreted as evidence of an actual intention to assassinate a political leader.

The jury rejected that defense on June 8, 2026, following four days of testimony. The conviction exposed Ortiz to a maximum prison sentence of five years on each of the three felony counts, along with possible fines of up to $250,000 per count and a period of supervised release.

Following the verdict, U.S. Attorney Timothy Courchaine emphasized that threats of political violence would be prosecuted regardless of the identity or political affiliation of the intended target.

“The message in this case is clear: The American people will not stand for threats of political violence against President Trump or any other elected official,” said U.S. Attorney Timothy Courchaine. “A jury of Mr. Ortiz’s peers unanimously agreed that his threats were egregious violations of the law and rendered a just verdict. Once again, federal prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office and agents from the U.S. Marshals Service and U.S. Secret Service proved their excellent skills and duty in protecting our elected officials.”

William R. Mack, the special agent in charge of the Secret Service’s Phoenix field office, likewise stressed that the agency investigates threats against individuals under its protection regardless of whether the person making them ultimately attempts an attack.

“The Secret Service takes every threat against our protectees with the utmost seriousness,” Mack said. “Our agents, working closely with our law enforcement partners, acted swiftly and thoroughly to investigate these threats and ensure the safety of those we are sworn to protect. This conviction demonstrates our unwavering commitment to our protectees and to upholding the law, as well as the dedication and professionalism of our team and law enforcement partners.”

U.S. Marshal Van Bayless also addressed the case following the conviction, describing the prosecution as an example of the legal consequences facing individuals who threaten elected officials.

“Our incredible Nation continues to flourish through a living Constitution with the understanding that we must abide by the Rule of Law,” Bayless said. “This case is an excellent reminder that anyone who threatens or attempts to intimidate our elected or appointed officials will be investigated by law enforcement, will be prosecuted, and will be held accountable for their conduct.”

Senior U.S. District Judge Stephen M. McNamee imposed the 38-month prison sentence on October 20, 2026. The Justice Department publicly announced the sentence two days later.

The investigation was conducted by the United States Secret Service with assistance from the U.S. Marshals Service. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Amy Chang and Abbie Broughton handled the federal prosecution in Arizona.

The case concludes a nearly two-year legal process that began with threats delivered during one of the most politically charged election periods in recent American history and ended with a federal jury conviction and a sentence of more than three years in prison.

{Matzav.com}

LISTEN:

https://matzav.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Bitachon4Life-Shiur-1895-Seiver-Part-95-Tikvah.mp3

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

 

LISTEN:

https://matzav.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Stories4Life-Shiur-633-Hashgacha-R-Sholom-Schwadron.mp3

In a potentially significant development on the eve of Israel’s Knesset elections, political sources are raising the possibility that Agudas Yisroel, headed by MK Yitzchok Goldknopf, could provide support to a government led by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s political opponents, marking a possible departure from the chareidi party’s longstanding alignment with Likud.

According to a report published Monday by the Jerusalem Post, political figures are examining several possible coalition scenarios following Tuesday’s elections, including one in which Agudas Yisroel’s three Knesset members could help an opposition-led government take office.

The possibility is being discussed amid mounting frustration within Agudas Yisroel over Netanyahu’s failure to deliver legislation protecting the status of yeshiva bochurim from military conscription.

Although no formal agreement has been announced, the prospect of Agudas Yisroel cooperating with Netanyahu’s opponents has become a subject of increasing discussion within Israeli political circles.

One scenario under consideration would involve Agudas Yisroel providing outside parliamentary support to a government led by former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot, potentially in exchange for commitments concerning the draft issue and funding for chareidi institutions.

Such an arrangement would not necessarily require Agudas Yisroel to formally join the government. Its representatives could instead abstain during a confidence vote, making it easier for an opposition-led coalition to secure sufficient parliamentary support.

The idea has surfaced repeatedly in recent weeks as tensions between the chareidi parties and Netanyahu have intensified.

In late September, Channel 12 political analyst Amit Segal reported that senior Agudas Yisroel officials were considering a scenario in which Goldknopf and fellow Ger representative Yaakov Tessler would abstain rather than vote against the establishment of a minority government headed by Eisenkot.

According to that report, the officials believed other United Torah Judaism representatives might also consider such a move, although there was no confirmation that Degel HaTorah would participate.

The report prompted considerable discussion because United Torah Judaism has traditionally been counted as part of Netanyahu’s right-wing and chareidi political bloc.

Goldknopf subsequently clarified that Agudas Yisroel’s position remained dependent on resolving the military draft controversy.

“Agudas Yisrael will not support the establishment of a government and will not assist any government from the outside without regulating the status of bnei yeshivos and legislating a draft law without sanctions and without targets,” Goldknopf declared.

His statement did not explicitly address how Agudas Yisroel would vote if an opposition-led minority government were presented for Knesset approval.

United Torah Judaism chairman Yaakov Asher also sought to distance the party from suggestions that it was actively attempting to replace Netanyahu.

Asher said UTJ “has no desire to topple or install anyone [as prime minister], and [is] not acting out of a desire for revenge or other interests.”

He maintained that the party’s position was based on obtaining a satisfactory legislative resolution to the status of yeshiva students.

The disagreements reflect growing dissatisfaction among elements of the chareidi political leadership with Netanyahu’s handling of the draft issue.

Agudas Yisroel officials have repeatedly expressed frustration over commitments made during previous coalition negotiations that were never fulfilled to their satisfaction.

Goldknopf has insisted that his party will not automatically support Netanyahu’s efforts to establish another government, even if the traditional right-wing and chareidi parties secure the 61 seats needed for a Knesset majority.

Instead, he has demanded written guarantees concerning legislation protecting yeshiva and kollel students.

The position has particular significance because of the involvement of the Gerer Rebbe, whose instructions have played a central role in determining Agudas Yisroel’s approach to the elections and the draft controversy.

Goldknopf has previously explained that the Gerer Rebbe wanted concrete assurances that legislation addressing the status of yeshiva students would actually be enacted, rather than general political promises.

Although the Gerer Rebbe has instructed his chassidim to vote for United Torah Judaism in Tuesday’s elections, questions remain concerning the party’s willingness to participate in a future Netanyahu government without binding commitments on the draft issue.

The uncertainty has also exposed differences between Agudas Yisroel and Degel HaTorah, the two factions that comprise United Torah Judaism.

Both factions have expressed dissatisfaction with the government’s handling of the draft crisis, but they have not necessarily adopted identical positions concerning future coalition arrangements.

According to the latest political assessments, Agudas Yisroel’s willingness to consider alternatives could complicate Netanyahu’s efforts to assemble a governing majority even if the traditional parties associated with his bloc perform sufficiently well at the polls.

At the same time, cooperation with an opposition-led government would present serious difficulties for Goldknopf.

Much of Agudas Yisroel’s electorate identifies politically with the Israeli Right, and analysts have suggested that an open commitment to supporting Netanyahu’s opponents could alienate voters who would otherwise support United Torah Judaism.

There is also the question of whether an opposition-led government would be prepared to offer concessions on military conscription acceptable to Agudas Yisroel’s rabbinic leadership.

Several parties associated with the opposition have campaigned on expanding military enlistment among chareidim, potentially complicating negotiations with Agudas Yisroel.

Eisenkot, however, has taken a comparatively more flexible position on the draft issue than some other opposition leaders and has previously indicated a willingness to cooperate with chareidi parties.

The Jerusalem Post report also examined other possible coalition arrangements if neither Netanyahu nor his opponents secure a workable parliamentary majority.

One possibility involves former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett joining a Netanyahu-led government, although such an arrangement is considered politically difficult and would require substantial changes in existing political alignments.

Another possibility discussed involves Yisrael Beytenu chairman Avigdor Liberman, who previously served in Netanyahu governments but has become one of his most prominent political opponents.

Political observers consider cooperation between Liberman and Netanyahu particularly difficult because of their longstanding personal and political disagreements.

A further possibility is that neither side succeeds in forming a government, resulting in another election.

For Agudas Yisroel, however, the central question remains whether any prospective prime minister will be willing and able to provide the guarantees its leadership is demanding concerning yeshiva bochurim.

{Matzav.com}

In a significant development just hours before Israel’s Knesset elections, Rav Moshe Tzadka, rosh yeshiva of Yeshiva Porat Yosef, has withdrawn a planned public letter opposing support for Shas, following a meeting with senior members of the party’s Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah.

The decision brings an apparent resolution to several days of tension within the Sefardi chareidi community, where reports that the prominent rosh yeshiva intended to publicly oppose Shas had generated considerable concern ahead of Tuesday’s vote.

Instead of issuing the original letter, Rav Tzadka released a new statement instructing individuals to follow the guidance of their own rabbonim regarding the elections, without explicitly endorsing or opposing Shas.

“After meeting with the chachomim and gedolei hador shlit”a concerning the matters currently before us, ahead of the consequential campaign over the Jewish character of Eretz Hakodesh and the protection of those who study Torah in Eretz Yisroel, so that they may learn in peace and security without interference, we hereby make known our position that regarding the elections, each person should follow the instructions of his rabbonim, and through this he shall merit blessing and goodness,” the statement declared.

The carefully worded announcement followed discussions at Rav Tzadka’s residence with members of the Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah who had visited him last week in an effort to prevent publication of the original letter.

Among those who participated in the meeting were former Sephardic Chief Rabbi Rav Yitzchok Yosef, Rav Moshe Maya, Rav Avrohom Salim, and Rav Yehuda Cohen.

The controversy centered on Rav Tzadka’s objections to Shas’s handling of the proposed military draft legislation, particularly provisions that critics contend could lead to the enlistment of chareidi young men who are not enrolled in full-time yeshiva studies.

According to those objections, the draft proposals under discussion included substantial enlistment targets that could result in pressure to recruit young chareidi men who are not learning in a formal yeshiva framework throughout the day.

Rav Tzadka’s associates had previously made clear that the rosh yeshiva had not instructed anyone to vote for Shas, despite claims circulating within the party.

“No instruction was given. We will not support [Shas] without a commitment that no one will be drafted,” individuals close to the rosh yeshiva said.

The new statement represents a carefully constructed compromise between the positions that had emerged during the dispute.

While Rav Tzadka stopped short of directing his followers to support Shas, he also refrained from issuing the anticipated instruction against voting for the party.

Instead, his declaration that “each person should follow the instructions of his rabbonim” leaves the decision to individual voters acting under the guidance of their respective rabbonim.

The development comes as Shas has intensified its election preparations, including a major emergency gathering in Yerushalayim attended by members of the Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah and approximately 200 roshei yeshiva, community rabbonim, and heads of Torah institutions.

At that gathering, senior rabbonim spoke about the challenges confronting the yeshiva world and called for widespread participation in the elections.

Rav Moshe Maya, the senior member of the Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah, also recently issued an unusually forceful appeal concerning the elections, addressing even communities whose members do not ordinarily participate in Knesset voting.

“Today the situation is completely different,” Rav Maya declared. “Today their banner is to disgrace talmidei chachomim as much as possible.”

His remarks reflected the concerns expressed by Shas rabbinic leaders over the treatment of Torah scholars and the ongoing controversy surrounding military conscription.

The possibility that Rav Tzadka would publicly oppose Shas had threatened to deepen divisions within the Sefardi chareidi community at a particularly sensitive moment, with the elections approaching and the future of draft legislation remaining a central issue.

The withdrawal of the proposed letter appears to have averted an open confrontation between the rosh yeshiva and the Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah.

Nevertheless, the wording of Rav Tzadka’s statement is significant. It does not constitute an endorsement of Shas, nor does it indicate that his underlying concerns regarding the draft legislation have been resolved.

Rather, the announcement establishes a position under which individual voters are directed to consult their own rabbonim, allowing Rav Tzadka to maintain his reservations while avoiding a public call against the party.

With polling stations scheduled to open Tuesday morning, the development closes a contentious chapter in the final days of the campaign, while leaving the broader disagreements over the proposed draft law unresolved.

{Matzav.com}

Rav Shabtai Levi, rov of Bnei Brak’s Ramat Aharon neighborhood and head of Mosdos Halichos Moshe, delivered an impassioned address at a gathering attended by thousands of bnei Torah, calling for participation in Tuesday’s Knesset elections and revealing discussions concerning changes in the leadership structure of Shas, including a renewed commitment to the authority of the Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah.

Speaking at a large Shiras Habakashos gathering held Sunday night at the Ramat Elchanan stadium in Bnei Brak, Rav Levi addressed the ongoing controversy surrounding the draft of yeshiva bochurim and rejected arguments that members of the chareidi community should refrain from voting.

The event, attended by thousands of participants, was held under the leadership of Bnei Brak Deputy Mayors Shlomi Elharar and Eliyahu Shushan.

During his remarks, Rav Levi recalled a personal conversation he had approximately 14 years ago with Rav Ovadia Yosef zt”l, the longtime spiritual leader of Shas.

According to Rav Levi, Rav Ovadia had been deeply distressed over government measures threatening the yeshiva world and the possibility of restrictions on Torah learning.

He described how Rav Ovadia wept bitterly as he spoke about the dangers confronting the Torah community and personally urged him to devote his energies to strengthening the Shas movement.

Rav Levi told the gathering that developments which had appeared distant and unlikely at the time of that conversation have since become pressing realities, particularly in light of the ongoing efforts to draft yeshiva bochurim and impose restrictions on those who do not enlist.

He connected his remarks to the example of Avrohom Avinu, speaking about the importance of dedication, emunah, and personal responsibility when confronting challenges to Torah life.

Turning to those advocating abstention from the elections, Rav Levi strongly rejected the suggestion that remaining passive could be justified on halachic grounds.

He specifically addressed the argument of shev v’al taaseh, refraining from action, as well as the expression safek bechiros lehakel, a play on the halachic principle of adopting a lenient position in cases of doubt.

Rav Levi argued that such reasoning was inappropriate when questions involving the observance of Shabbos, the preservation of religious standards, and the future of Torah institutions were at stake.

He maintained that these circumstances called for greater stringency and active involvement rather than leniency or inaction.

“Anyone who has Jewish blood flowing through his veins will not sit at home,” Rav Levi declared, according to the message conveyed in his address.

He characterized the current situation as a critical moment for the yeshiva world and appealed to those who identify with the values of Torah and Yiddishkeit to recognize the seriousness of the challenges facing the community.

Toward the conclusion of his speech, Rav Levi addressed another issue that has generated discussion within the Sefardi chareidi community: the relationship between Shas’s political leadership and the Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah.

He disclosed that he had personally spoken with senior figures involved in the party’s leadership, including rabbonim and political officials, concerning the direction of the movement following the elections.

According to Rav Levi, those discussions resulted in explicit assurances that significant changes would be implemented after Election Day, with renewed emphasis on the authority of the Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah and adherence to its decisions.

He said the commitments included a strengthening of the movement’s leadership structure and a renewed dedication to conducting its affairs in accordance with daas Torah.

{Matzav.com}

An extraordinary account of the mesirus nefesh demonstrated by the previous Belzer Rebbe, Rav Aharon of Belz zy”a, during Israel’s 1951 elections was shared at an emergency election gathering held at the home of the current Belzer Rebbe, where rabbonim, communal leaders, and representatives of chareidi institutions assembled ahead of Tuesday’s Knesset elections.

The gathering, convened in support of United Torah Judaism, brought together representatives of the various chareidi political factions, municipal council members, askonim, roshei mosdos, and administrators of yeshivos, Talmudei Torah, and girls’ educational institutions, along with leaders of the Belzer mosdos.

One of the most memorable moments came when the elderly Reb Mordechai Weber, who served as a personal attendant to Rav Aharon of Belz, recounted how the Rebbe had once permitted his entire household staff to leave him alone for an extended period so that they could travel to vote.

Weber described an incident that occurred during the second Knesset elections, held in Tammuz 5711 (1951), when three separate chareidi parties were competing: Agudas Yisroel, Poalei Agudas Yisroel, and Pagi.

After hearing the various arguments, Rav Aharon of Belz instructed his chassidim to support Agudas Yisroel, then led by Rav Yitzchok Meir Levin, a son-in-law of the Imrei Emes of Ger.

“We should vote for Itche Meir’s Agudah,” the Rebbe declared, according to Weber’s recollection.

Weber explained that the Rebbe was physically frail and ordinarily required attendants to remain with him at all times. His gabbaim and household members were careful never to leave him unattended, and the Rebbe himself insisted upon this arrangement.

On Election Day, however, the Rebbe was staying in Yerushalayim, as was his custom during the summer months, while members of his household were registered to vote in Tel Aviv.

Despite the considerable distance between the two cities and the lengthy travel times in those days, Rav Aharon instructed his gabbai, Reb Shalom Fogel, and the other members of his household to travel to Tel Aviv to cast their ballots.

Weber, who held foreign citizenship and was therefore not voting, remained behind to attend to the Rebbe.

“I was privileged to witness how the Rebbe demonstrated mesirus nefesh for the elections so that not even a single vote would be lost,” Weber recalled.

He described the extraordinary nature of the decision, explaining that the Rebbe had never previously remained without his regular attendants.

During the hours they were away, Weber heard the Rebbe speak forcefully about the obligation to participate in the elections and strengthen the political representation of Torah-observant Jews.

At one point, a visitor from overseas arrived to take leave of the Rebbe before departing on a journey.

Rav Aharon agreed to receive the visitor only on condition that he not present a kvittel, the customary written petition requesting a bracha.

When the visitor appeared in the doorway holding a piece of paper that resembled a kvittel, the Rebbe became visibly alarmed.

“Don’t you know that today is Election Day? Don’t you know that today is Election Day?” he exclaimed.

Weber explained to the Rebbe that the paper was merely an ordinary sheet and not a kvittel.

After the visitor departed, the Rebbe turned to Weber and explained why he had allowed his attendants to leave despite the considerable difficulty it caused him.

“You see that it is difficult for me to be without a gabbai, but such a mitzvah I cannot prevent,” Rav Aharon told him.

Weber recalled that when the Rebbe uttered the words “such a mitzvah,” he raised both hands with tremendous enthusiasm.

The elderly attendant also recounted that individuals came to the Rebbe’s home that day to protest his instruction to participate in the elections.

Rav Aharon responded sharply.

“I must say it already. They have absolutely no authority over us!” he declared.

The Rebbe subsequently cited a teaching from his father, the previous Belzer Rebbe, Rav Yissochor Dov zy”a, that when a person takes an action and afterward feels no regret over it, this indicates that he acted properly.

“And my heart does not trouble me over the decision I made,” Rav Aharon said.

Weber pointed out that in those elections, Agudas Yisroel secured its third Knesset seat by a margin of just 13 surplus votes, an example he cited to demonstrate the potential significance of every ballot.

He added that Rav Aharon’s involvement in elections continued in subsequent years. Ahead of the 1955 elections, the Rebbe reportedly inquired when the askonim would arrive to obtain his signature on the public proclamation calling for participation.

Weber concluded by drawing a connection between those earlier elections and the current situation confronting the chareidi community.

“If so, as we now stand before such a consequential election, with Jewish bochurim being persecuted because of their Torah learning, we must remember the words of the Rebbe zy”a, and the instructions of the present Rebbe shlit”a and all the gedolei Yisroel, and understand that every vote matters in this campaign, just as in 1951, when the third seat was decided by a margin of thirteen votes,” he said.

The gathering also featured an address by Hagaon Rav Yisroel Meir Druck, rosh yeshiva of Yeshivas Tiferes Yisroel, who spoke about the responsibility to respond to what he described as a threat to kavod Shomayim.

“At a time when there is concern about chillul Hashem, one may not look right or left,” Rav Druck declared. “There must be no delay and no negligence in this great battle.”

He connected his remarks to the actions of Avrohom Avinu in Parshas Lech Lecha, drawing upon Avrohom’s determination in confronting the challenges of his time.

Rav Shmuel Yaakov Landau, a dayan of Kahal Machzikei Hadas in Beit Shemesh, addressed the relationship between bitachon and practical hishtadlus.

“Under no circumstances may we become complacent and say that because we rely on Hakadosh Boruch Hu, we do not need to act,” Rav Landau said. “From Shomayim, they are waiting to see our actions and how much we are prepared to exert ourselves for the Torah.”

The speakers repeatedly emphasized the importance they attached to the upcoming elections in light of the continuing draft crisis and the challenges confronting yeshiva bochurim and the broader Torah community.

United Torah Judaism MK Yaakov Asher, who heads the party’s candidate list, also addressed the gathering.

Asher recalled guidance he had received from Rav Aharon Leib Steinman zt”l, who taught that in order to merit siyata diShmaya, one must make every possible effort to increase the number of votes cast for the chareidi party.

The emergency gathering concluded with the assembled representatives approaching the Belzer Rebbe to receive his bracha for success in their efforts.

כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק

אתם יושבים?! בית ענק במרכז עכשיו רק 1,820,000 ש”ח

שימי פרקש כתבה מקדמת

14:57

הזדמנות אחרונה לגור בפסגת אלעד. צפו במפרט >

תוכן מקודם

00:20

“מי שמחזיק בדירה – יכול לקבל הלוואה מידית”

תוכן מקודם

23:21

כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק כינוס הבחירות בבעלזאצילום: אנשיל בעק

{Matzav.com}

In an unusual halachic ruling released on the eve of Israel’s Knesset elections, Rav Yitzchok Zilberstein has instructed a woman whose husband forbade her from voting for United Torah Judaism to cast her ballot anyway, without informing her husband, declaring that following the instructions of the gedolei hador takes precedence in the circumstances presented.

The ruling, which was publicized through the Siach Yitzchok telephone hotline, came in response to a question presented to Rav Zilberstein by his grandson, Rav Chaim Malin, concerning a woman who found herself caught between her husband’s opposition to participating in the elections and her desire to follow the instructions of the leading gedolei Yisroel.

According to the question, the woman and her husband had voted for United Torah Judaism for many years, following the guidance of Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman zt”l and Rav Chaim Kanievsky zt”l, as well as the current instructions of Rav Dov Landau.

In recent years, however, her husband had become increasingly critical of the chareidi rabbinic leadership. He had begun expressing objections to the positions of the gedolei Yisroel and questioning their guidance on various matters.

Eventually, the husband informed his wife that he would not be voting in the upcoming elections and that he did not permit her to vote either.

“I am absolutely not agreeing to this. I am not voting, and you are not voting either,” the husband told her, according to the question presented to Rav Zilberstein.

The woman, however, was deeply troubled by the situation.

She explained that she had been watching Rav Dov Landau, despite his advanced age, traveling from city to city to encourage the chareidi public to participate in the elections.

“I see Rav Dov Landau at such an advanced age, traveling every day to another city, crying and speaking to people about how important it is to vote, and what a battle there is now,” she said.

The woman wanted to know whether she was obligated to follow her husband’s instructions or whether she should disregard his objections and vote in accordance with the guidance of the gedolei Yisroel.

Rav Zilberstein’s response was immediate and unequivocal.

“She should vote and not tell him!” he declared.

“Of course she is obligated to vote, certainly. She should go vote, but she should not tell him, and she should handle everything wisely.”

Rav Malin then presented a second question on the woman’s behalf.

Even if she were permitted to vote without her husband’s knowledge, she wondered whether doing so was worthwhile when her ballot represented only a single vote.

The woman questioned whether one additional ballot could possibly make a meaningful difference in the election results.

Rav Zilberstein rejected that reasoning.

“That one vote is enormous. It is impossible to know. It could be that this vote is the deciding one,” he explained.

The posek then added that the significance of the woman’s participation extended beyond its possible effect on the election results.

“But this vote is recorded in Shomayim to her merit, that she and her husband should live long lives, that both she and her husband should live long lives, because this is a Kiddush Hashem,” Rav Zilberstein said.

The discussion then turned to another question: whether the woman would be violating the expectation of openness between husband and wife by concealing her decision to vote.

Rav Malin noted that the traditional kesubah includes language concerning spouses not concealing matters from one another.

Nevertheless, he suggested that the circumstances were different because the woman was acting lesheim Shomayim, for the sake of Heaven.

Rav Zilberstein responded with a particularly striking distinction.

“The requirement not to conceal things from one another is about bubkes, not about Kiddush Shem Shomayim. Let us sanctify the Name of Heaven!”

His ruling made clear that, in the circumstances described, he regarded the woman’s obligation to participate in the elections as sufficiently important that she should vote even without her husband’s knowledge.

The recorded exchange has attracted attention because it addresses the intersection of shalom bayis, marital obligations, and adherence to the instructions of the gedolei hador.

Rav Zilberstein’s ruling was directed at the particular situation presented to him, involving a woman who wished to follow the rabbinic guidance she had traditionally accepted but whose husband had recently begun opposing that guidance.

The ruling comes amid an extraordinary effort by the Lithuanian chareidi leadership to encourage participation in Tuesday’s elections.

Rav Dov Landau has been traveling extensively in recent days, addressing gatherings and urging members of the chareidi community to support United Torah Judaism.

The election campaign has been dominated by concerns over the proposed military draft legislation, the legal status of yeshiva bochurim, and the future of Torah institutions in Eretz Yisroel.

Senior rabbonim have warned that the outcome of the elections could have far-reaching consequences for the ability of yeshiva bochurim and avreichim to continue learning without interference.

Rav Zilberstein himself has delivered several forceful appeals in recent days, emphasizing that voting is a religious obligation under the present circumstances.

During remarks delivered over Shabbos in his Ramat Elchanan neighborhood of Bnei Brak, Rav Zilberstein described the elections as a struggle over the future of the Torah world.

“Our situation is not simple,” he told those gathered. “We need a great deal of Heavenly mercy so that there should be a Kiddush Hashem, and that, chas veshalom, those who are plotting to destroy the Torah world should not defeat us.”

He continued, “This time, these are elections on which our very souls depend, so that we can continue learning Torah and observing mitzvos in Eretz Yisroel.”

Rav Zilberstein urged the public to follow the instructions of the gedolei Yisroel and participate in the elections, while also strengthening their Torah learning.

{Matzav.com}

More than 7.3 million Israelis are eligible to cast ballots Tuesday in elections for the 26th Knesset, with polling stations opening across the country at 7 a.m. and remaining open until 10 p.m. as voters determine the composition of Israel’s 120-seat parliament.

According to figures released ahead of Election Day, 7,331,981 citizens are eligible to vote, with 12,018 polling stations established nationwide. A total of 36 party lists are competing for representation in the Knesset.

Election officials have announced special arrangements for soldiers, hospitalized patients, residents displaced by the war, and individuals with mobility limitations. Free transportation will also be provided on designated intercity routes to help voters reach their polling stations.

Most polling stations will open at 7 a.m. Tuesday and close at 10 p.m. However, voting will end at 8 p.m. in certain smaller communities and at special polling stations operating in hospitals, prisons, and nursing homes.

Voters who are uncertain where they are registered can obtain their polling station information through the Interior Ministry’s online locator by entering the required identification details. Additional information about polling locations and operating hours is available through the Central Elections Committee.

Although eligible voters have received election notices by mail, bringing the notice is not mandatory. It can, however, help voters identify their assigned polling station and make the process more convenient.

Every voter must present an approved identification document before receiving a ballot envelope. Accepted documents include an Israeli identity card, known as a teudat zehut, a valid Israeli driver’s license, a valid Israeli passport, or valid personal military identification. Police officers may also identify themselves using their official police credentials.

Special voting procedures have been established for individuals who cannot cast their ballots at their regular polling stations.

IDF soldiers may vote at designated military polling stations on their bases or at their assigned civilian polling stations. Police officers are permitted to vote at polling stations throughout the country, subject to the applicable identification and voting requirements.

Hospitals with at least 50 inpatient beds will be served by a total of 250 special polling stations, enabling patients receiving medical treatment to participate in the elections without leaving their facilities.

Similar arrangements will be available at nursing homes housing more than 50 residents. Individuals with mobility difficulties who reside in institutions without their own polling stations may use designated accessible voting locations.

Separate arrangements have also been prepared for Israelis who remain displaced from their homes because of the war.

Those residents may vote at the polling stations assigned to their original residential addresses or utilize special arrangements established for displaced communities. Dedicated polling stations will be provided for evacuees from Be’eri, Kfar Aza, Nir Oz, and Holit, while eligible individuals may also use specially accessible polling stations.

Accessibility is another major component of the election preparations. Of the polling stations operating nationwide, 6,208 will be accessible to people with disabilities, including 3,620 classified as specially accessible polling stations.

Voters whose mobility limitations prevent them from reaching their assigned polling station may cast ballots at these specially accessible locations, even if they are not registered there. Their votes will be placed in double envelopes to ensure they are included in the national count while preventing duplicate voting.

Where a voter’s disability is not apparent, election officials may require a signed declaration confirming eligibility to use the special arrangements. Providing false information in such a declaration constitutes a criminal offense.

The Central Elections Committee’s polling station map identifies accessible facilities, with purple markings indicating locations that contain at least one specially accessible polling station.

Election officials are also reminding voters to follow the required procedures carefully to prevent their ballots from being disqualified.

After presenting identification, each voter receives an official ballot envelope and enters a private voting booth. Inside the booth, the voter selects the paper slip bearing the letters of the chosen party, places it inside the envelope, and deposits the sealed envelope into the ballot box.

Voters are advised to use the official ballot slips provided at the polling station and avoid adding writing, markings, or other materials. Ballots that do not comply with the required dimensions, color, or printing standards may be rejected.

An envelope containing two or three identical ballot slips will still be counted as a single valid vote. However, voters are encouraged to insert only one slip to avoid unnecessary complications.

Transportation authorities have meanwhile announced free travel on selected public transportation services beginning Monday evening.

The arrangement takes effect at 8 p.m. Monday and continues until the conclusion of public transportation operations on Election Day. It covers Israel Railways services and intercity bus routes longer than 15 kilometers.

Local urban bus services will continue charging their usual fares.

Voters traveling Tuesday may also face difficult weather conditions in parts of the country. Forecasts indicate that temperatures will fall toward seasonal averages, with scattered rainfall expected primarily in southern and eastern Israel.

Rain is expected to become heavier during the afternoon in those regions, potentially accompanied by thunderstorms, strong wind gusts, and hail.

Authorities have warned of possible flash flooding in streams and low-lying areas of the southern Negev, Arava, Judean Desert, and Dead Sea region. Motorists and others traveling through those areas are advised to monitor weather warnings and comply with official safety instructions.

The counting of votes will get underway after polling stations close Tuesday night at 10 p.m. Election workers at each location will open the ballot envelopes, tally the votes, and prepare official reports documenting the results.

Those reports, together with the election materials, will be delivered to regional election committees for verification before the figures are entered into the Central Elections Committee’s national reporting system.

Preliminary results will begin appearing overnight, with additional figures released as more polling stations complete their counts. However, the initial totals will not necessarily reflect the final distribution of the Knesset’s 120 seats.

A major factor in determining the final outcome will be the counting of double-envelope ballots, which are used by voters who cast their ballots outside their regularly assigned polling stations.

These include soldiers, police officers, prison guards, hospitalized patients, and other individuals covered by special voting arrangements.

Under the system, the completed ballot is placed inside a regular voting envelope, which is then enclosed in a second envelope containing identifying information. Election officials use the outer envelope to confirm that the individual has not voted elsewhere, while the inner envelope preserves the secrecy of the ballot.

Between 600,000 and 650,000 voters are expected to use double envelopes in this election, according to Central Elections Committee estimates. That would represent a record number of such ballots, numerically equivalent to approximately 15 Knesset seats.

The comparison does not mean that 15 seats will change hands when those ballots are counted. Rather, it illustrates the considerable number of votes that may remain outstanding after the initial election-night results are published.

In previous elections, the inclusion of double-envelope ballots has sometimes altered the final allocation of one or two Knesset seats.

Because a substantial share of these ballots comes from IDF personnel, their political distribution has historically differed from the overall electorate. In earlier elections, the additional count has sometimes increased the relative representation of Zionist parties while reducing the proportional strength of chareidi and Arab parties.

Those historical patterns do not establish how the ballots will be distributed in Tuesday’s election, but they explain why political parties will be closely monitoring the count even after most ordinary polling stations have reported their results.

Election officials expect the counting process to be substantially completed by Thursday afternoon. The legal deadline for publication of the official election results is Wednesday, November 4.

Additional preparations for the election include the printing of approximately 450 million ballot slips, the deployment of roughly 15,000 cameras for election oversight, and a nationwide operation involving approximately 100,000 election workers.

Voters arriving at a polling station before its scheduled closing time will be permitted to cast their ballots even if they remain in line after the official closing hour. Election officials also have authority to adjust polling arrangements in exceptional circumstances, including security emergencies.

For voters traveling by public transportation, authorities have clarified that eligible intercity bus passengers may board without presenting identification or validating a fare card. Train passengers, however, must obtain a complimentary ticket from a station ticket machine or service counter.

Travelers can determine whether a particular bus route qualifies for free service by calling the Transportation Ministry’s information line at \*8787. Free transportation to or from Eilat is subject to separate eligibility requirements and advance registration through Egged at \*2800.

Election Day is also generally a paid day off for eligible employees in Israel, although essential services will continue operating and separate compensation arrangements apply to those required to work.

With millions of voters, thousands of polling stations, and a substantial number of ballots expected to be counted after Election Night, Israel’s next Knesset will begin taking shape Tuesday evening, although the precise allocation of seats may remain unsettled for several days.

{Matzav.com}

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu spent weeks attempting to arrange a new military strike against Iran ahead of Tuesday’s Israeli elections, encountering resistance from IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir and failing to secure approval from President Donald Trump, according to multiple reports published Monday that have triggered a major controversy within Israel’s political and defense establishments.

The reports, citing senior Israeli defense officials, American officials and individuals familiar with the discussions, describe growing disagreements over the timing and potential consequences of renewed military action against Iran, particularly with Israelis preparing to vote on October 27.

Netanyahu reportedly sought to advance an operation that could have reignited hostilities with Tehran, while Zamir raised concerns about the military implications and the possibility that an Iranian retaliation could disrupt or even force the postponement of the elections.

The Prime Minister’s Office has rejected the allegations, describing reports of Netanyahu’s efforts to secure an immediate attack as “fake news.” Defense Minister Yisrael Katz also issued an emphatic denial, insisting that Israel had never intended to initiate military action against Iran before the elections.

According to a report in Israel Hayom, Netanyahu supported moving ahead with a relatively swift operation against Iran and received backing from Mossad Director Roman Gofman. Zamir, however, opposed the proposal and reportedly had not been informed about it beforehand.

A source familiar with the discussions said the contemplated action “could have led to renewed war with Iran,” although the proposed operation was not intended to constitute a full-scale military offensive.

The disagreement reportedly centered on whether Israel should proceed immediately with an operation that could provoke a broader confrontation or wait until the military and political circumstances were more favorable.

Channel 12 reported Sunday evening that tensions between Netanyahu and Zamir had intensified after the military chief received instructions concerning an operation that senior defense officials believed could rapidly escalate into another confrontation with Iran.

Because of the potential consequences, Zamir reportedly insisted on a thorough examination of the proposal and appropriate authorization before proceeding.

Military officials were also said to be concerned about the appearance of launching a major security operation immediately before an election, particularly amid accusations from opposition politicians that Netanyahu could benefit politically from a renewed confrontation with Iran.

However, the Israel Hayom report emphasized that legitimate operational considerations could also explain the proposed timing, independent of the election campaign. It further indicated that the military and intelligence establishments generally support continued efforts to weaken Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, even while disagreeing about the timing and methods of particular operations.

The dispute extended to Washington, where Netanyahu reportedly sought American participation in renewed attacks.

CNN reported Monday that Netanyahu had pressed Trump to approve a joint American-Israeli operation before the Israeli election, but the president declined to authorize an immediate strike.

“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,” an Israeli security source told CNN.

According to the report, American officials indicated that Washington was not ruling out renewed military action but wanted Israel to delay any operation until the United States was prepared to participate.

American military planners have reportedly developed substantial strike options that could be implemented within days of receiving presidential authorization.

CNN reported that a major American operation could begin within 96 hours of an order from Trump and could involve attacks against Iranian military installations, nuclear facilities and critical infrastructure.

The proposed campaign would reportedly go considerably beyond limited strikes intended merely to degrade Iranian capabilities temporarily.

Israel was said to have accepted Washington’s request for a delay partly because of concerns about its ability to defend against a large-scale Iranian missile response without American assistance.

Defense officials are reportedly concerned that another confrontation could bring missile attacks from Iran and potentially from the Houthis in Yemen, placing additional demands on Israel’s air-defense systems.

The timing of any renewed offensive is also complicated by the American midterm elections scheduled for November 3.

According to diplomatic sources cited by Israel Hayom, Trump prefers to postpone a major operation until after the American elections, with officials believing that military objectives could be achieved just as effectively afterward.

The administration is also reportedly concerned that renewed fighting could cause oil prices to rise, creating additional economic and political complications immediately before Americans head to the polls.

The latest controversy follows earlier reports that Netanyahu and Trump discussed the possibility of another major campaign against Iran during several conversations this month.

According to Axios, Netanyahu expressed concern about intelligence suggesting that Iran was attempting to rebuild elements of its nuclear program following earlier military operations.

Israeli officials have reportedly been particularly concerned about the possibility of renewed uranium-enrichment activity at deeply buried Iranian facilities.

American and Israeli military officials have continued preparations for possible renewed hostilities even as Trump has withheld authorization for an immediate offensive.

Zamir reportedly warned American military officials that an attack shortly before the Israeli election could produce substantial Iranian retaliation and potentially interfere with the voting process.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu has publicly emphasized the continuing threat posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

On Sunday, he circulated an AI-generated image depicting a nuclear explosion in Tel Aviv, warning about the dangers of allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons and calling for the confrontation with Tehran to be completed during the remaining two years of Trump’s presidency.

The reports have prompted strong reactions from opposition politicians.

Yisrael Beytenu chairman Avigdor Liberman announced Monday that he had asked Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara to investigate Netanyahu over allegations that he had pressured security officials to undertake actions that could lead to a confrontation with Iran.

Liberman accused Netanyahu of potentially endangering Israeli security for electoral purposes, allegations that have not been established and that the government denies.

Former IDF chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot also criticized Netanyahu’s handling of the Iran issue, accusing him of employing alarming security messages during the election campaign.

Katz, however, strongly defended the government’s conduct and rejected suggestions of a confrontation between Netanyahu and the military leadership.

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

“I state unequivocally that Israel had no intention of initiating an attack on Iran before the election in Israel, while making clear that if Iran attacks Israel, we will respond with great force,” he added.

Netanyahu himself denied reports of a confrontation with Zamir during an appearance on Channel 14 Sunday night, insisting that “there is no confrontation.”

The prime minister also suggested that the controversy was distracting attention from warnings that Iran was attempting to interfere in Israel’s election.

Separately, Israel Hayom reported that Israeli and American officials have been examining broader military options intended to severely weaken the Iranian government and potentially bring about its collapse.

Those discussions reportedly include attacks against Iranian leadership and military infrastructure, although no decision to proceed with such a campaign has been publicly announced.

The immediate question is whether Israel and the United States will resume major military operations against Iran after their respective elections.

For now, despite reports of extensive military preparations and continuing discussions between Jerusalem and Washington, Trump has not authorized the immediate joint attack that Netanyahu reportedly sought.

Rav Shaul Alter, rosh yeshiva of the Pnei Menachem community, is scheduled to depart for Florida on Tuesday, where he will spend the coming Shabbos at a special Chavrusa convention organized by Mosdos Pnei Menachem in Tampa. Before leaving Eretz Yisroel, the rosh yeshiva intends to cast his ballot for United Torah Judaism, whose electoral symbol is Gimmel.

Rav Alter’s schedule on Election Day will be particularly tight. He is expected to vote early Tuesday morning and then travel directly to Ben Gurion Airport for his flight to the United States.

The upcoming visit has generated considerable anticipation among members of the Pnei Menachem community in America, who are preparing to welcome the rosh yeshiva for the Shabbos gathering.

During his Seudah Shlishis tish this past Shabbos, Rav Alter spoke about the upcoming journey and asked his chassidim to daven for his success.

“Please daven for me that I should succeed in my mission and that I should not stumble into arrogance and haughtiness,” the rosh yeshiva told those assembled.

During the same tish, Rav Alter delivered sharp remarks condemning recent incidents in which prominent admorim from Yerushalayim and Bnei Brak were subjected to violence and harassment.

The incidents, which occurred last week, prompted widespread condemnation across the chareidi community, with rabbonim and communal figures expressing outrage over the mistreatment of respected Torah leaders.

Rav Alter addressed the issue through a discussion of a posuk in Parshas Lech Lecha describing Yishmoel: “Yado vakol,” meaning that his hand would be against everyone.

The rosh yeshiva cited the differing explanations of the Targum and Rashi regarding the meaning of the expression. According to one interpretation, the reference is to a hand extended toward others to receive money, while the other describes a hand raised to strike others.

Rav Alter then applied the two interpretations to those responsible for the recent attacks, criticizing individuals who solicit funds overseas to support demonstrations while also engaging in violent conduct.

“There are those who think they are being ‘machmir’ according to both interpretations,” Rav Alter remarked. “On the one hand, their hands are extended to collect money overseas for the demonstrations and protests they organize, while on the other hand, they are also ‘machmir’ and seek to resort to violence. If they were merely collecting money, that would be one thing, but why are they ‘machmir’ and insist on engaging in violence as well?”

The rosh yeshiva’s remarks were understood as a pointed condemnation of extremist elements involved in demonstrations that have included attacks on prominent admorim.

Members of the Pnei Menachem community also revealed that following the recent incident in which the Karlin-Stolin Rebbe was attacked, Rav Alter sent the Rebbe a personal letter of chizuk.

In the letter, Rav Alter referred to the words of Chazal in the Sifri concerning the posuk, “On condition that they will stone you and revile you,” which describes the abuse that may be directed at those who uphold the Torah.

The rosh yeshiva expressed his pain that such words had become relevant to contemporary events.

“Had our generation been worthy, we would not have needed to fulfill this condition in practice,” Rav Alter wrote. “But since our generation has not been worthy, we are compelled to witness these words being fulfilled in reality.”

{Matzav.com}