Feed aggregator

President Trump emerged from a high-powered White House gathering with Elon Musk, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, House Speaker Mike Johnson and some of the biggest names in American technology Tuesday to announce a new industry-wide agreement aimed at keeping the United States dominant in artificial intelligence — or, as Trump now wants the federal government to call it, “Super Intelligence.”

The agreement is real and was signed Tuesday by leading technology executives, according to multiple reports. But it is not a legally binding government regulation or a new federal law. Rather, the White House is describing it as a voluntary industry compact under which the country’s leading AI companies commit to policing the development of increasingly powerful systems through internal safeguards, risk assessments and independent outside reviews.

Trump described the agreement as essentially a “morally binding” constitution governing the industry’s conduct as the technology advances at extraordinary speed. The document itself also leaves open the possibility that some of its principles could eventually be formally codified.

The accord followed what Trump described as a highly productive White House lunch with Johnson and more than a dozen of the country’s leading technology executives. Participants included Musk, Huang, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and executives representing OpenAI and Google.

Trump praised the executives following the gathering, saying they “LOVE our country” and presenting the agreement as an unusual moment of cooperation among companies that ordinarily compete fiercely against one another.

Among the companies signing the voluntary accord were Google, Meta, Nvidia, Anthropic, Musk’s xAI and OpenAI, whose president, Greg Brockman, signed on behalf of the company.

The agreement declares that companies developing advanced AI systems bear responsibility for making sure their products are built safely and retain public confidence.

“In order to build a positive future for the American people and the world, we believe every company is responsible for developing its own technology safely and in a way that builds trust with customers and the public,” the agreement states.

Under the compact, participating companies agreed to establish internal controls intended to prevent advanced AI systems from behaving in dangerous or unintended ways. They also committed to conducting risk assessments, submitting their safeguards to independent external auditors and establishing internal board-level structures to review the findings of those audits.

The arrangement represents an important element of Trump’s broader AI policy: rather than imposing a sweeping federal regulatory structure on the rapidly developing industry, the administration is seeking to preserve aggressive American innovation while relying heavily on technology companies to police themselves.

“I’m seeing tremendous self-policing,” Trump said after the meeting.

Johnson said the agreement would establish “robust internal controls and layers of internal and external review,” while making clear that Washington would continue watching how the technology develops.

“Congress is going to keep steady hands at the wheel on this. We’ll continue to assess and further deliberate in the days ahead,” Johnson said.

Huang rejected the premise that technological development and safety necessarily have to come at the expense of one another.

“There’s no conflict between innovation, technology and safety,” Huang said. “We are going to have to create new technologies to advance the capabilities of AI, but we’re also creating new technologies to advance the safety of it.”

Amodei, whose company Anthropic has been among the most vocal major AI developers warning about the potential dangers posed by increasingly capable systems, also endorsed the agreement.

“This is a start,” Amodei said.

Trump’s approach nevertheless stops well short of the government-imposed safeguards sought by some AI researchers, lawmakers and technology executives. The president has repeatedly resisted efforts to substantially slow AI development, arguing that doing so could surrender America’s technological advantage to China.

“We do not surrender to fears about what technologies will do to us,” Trump said Tuesday. “We decide that those technologies will do for us some very, very incredible things.”

The president made the competition with Beijing a central theme of his remarks, portraying control of the next generation of AI as potentially decisive in determining global technological leadership.

“Whoever wins super intelligence wins. You know, it’s an expression. Whoever wins super intelligence wins. You’re going to have a winner and a loser, and you’re probably not going to have a second place. You’re going to have a winner or you’re going to have a loser. We’re leading now over China and everyone else, and I want to keep it that way,” Trump said.

Trump also said he is moving ahead with his unusual effort to replace the term “artificial intelligence” in federal government usage with “Super Intelligence,” abbreviated “SI.”

“This kind of innovation in government is just a preview of what is possible with super intelligence or SI, and that’s the official name in the United States. I’ll be signing a very powerful executive order,” Trump said.

“This isn’t — this is extreme intelligence. It’s superior intelligence. It’s, uh, supreme also intelligence, but the word super is the best word of all and it’s the simplest. And so we’re going to be naming it SI, super intelligence, but we don’t want to hear artificial because it’s not artificial. It’s very powerful,” he said.

The terminology is not entirely new. Trump announced at the United Nations last week that federal documents would begin referring to AI as “Super Intelligence,” arguing that the word “artificial” inaccurately suggested that the technology was somehow fake. The United States and China also recently established a U.S.-China Super Intelligence Dialogue and a communication channel intended to address major AI-related incidents.

Tuesday’s White House meeting therefore did not create “SI” itself, as some early social-media accounts suggested. The term is Trump’s administration-wide rebranding of artificial intelligence, while the agreement signed by technology executives is a separate voluntary safety accord.

The president also suggested that a roughly 10-member committee could be created to oversee developments in advanced AI, potentially drawing some of its members from the technology leaders who attended Tuesday’s gathering. Trump said he was also close to choosing a new administration official to coordinate federal AI policy.

Tuesday’s announcements extended beyond the industry agreement. Earlier in the day, Trump unveiled America.gov, a new AI-powered government portal intended eventually to serve as a single digital gateway for Americans seeking federal services and information.

The new platform is being developed with technology from Google’s Gemini and Musk’s Grok and is intended to function as what U.S. Chief Design Officer Joe Gebbia called a “concierge to navigate government.”

At launch, the system can search information contained across government websites. The administration says future versions are intended to help Americans complete tasks involving federal programs and services, potentially including Medicare enrollment and passport renewals.

The White House gathering comes amid an increasingly intense national debate over AI safety. Leading developers have acknowledged that their newest systems are rapidly becoming more capable, while researchers and executives have publicly disagreed over whether government intervention is necessary to prevent catastrophic misuse or loss of control.

Trump, however, made clear Tuesday that he intends to pursue American dominance without imposing restrictions that he believes could cripple innovation.

“This is one more example of why I will never stifle the growth of technology that will be bigger than the Industrial Revolution,” Trump said.

For the moment, the centerpiece of that approach is the new voluntary compact: America’s most powerful AI companies pledging to install safeguards and subject themselves to internal and outside scrutiny, while the Trump administration largely leaves development in the industry’s hands.

California will outlaw the sale of disposable nicotine vapes beginning in 2028 under a new law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom — while explicitly exempting cannabis vaping products from the ban.

Assembly Bill 762 prohibits retailers and distributors from selling or distributing single-use nicotine vaping devices in California beginning Jan. 1, 2028. The state will begin phasing out the products even earlier, with manufacturing and importing covered disposable vapes prohibited starting in 2027.

The legislation specifically targets electronic cigarettes and vaping products that combine a permanently embedded battery with a nicotine- or tobacco-containing cartridge designed to be discarded when the liquid or battery runs out.

Vaping products will still be permitted under the new rules if they meet requirements intended to make them reusable. Legal devices will generally need rechargeable batteries and either refillable reservoirs or replaceable cartridges or pods rather than being thrown away after a single cycle of use.

Cannabis vaping products, however, are specifically excluded from the prohibition, meaning disposable marijuana vapes sold through California’s regulated cannabis market will not be affected by the nicotine-device ban.

Supporters of AB 762 have framed the legislation largely as an environmental measure rather than simply another restriction on tobacco and nicotine products.

Disposable vapes typically contain lithium-ion batteries, plastics, electronic components and residual nicotine liquid. Because the batteries generally cannot be easily removed, the devices are difficult to recycle and are frequently discarded with ordinary household garbage.

Environmental and public-health groups have warned that discarded vaping devices can leak nicotine and toxic metals into the environment. Lithium batteries tossed into garbage and recycling streams can also be punctured or crushed, potentially triggering fires at waste facilities, garbage trucks and recycling plants.

Advocacy organizations have estimated that hundreds of thousands of disposable vaping devices are discarded across the United States every day, creating a growing stream of electronic and hazardous waste.

The legislation gives California businesses an extended period to transition away from disposable products. Retailers will be permitted to continue selling existing inventory through the end of 2027 before the retail prohibition takes effect on Jan. 1, 2028.

Manufacturers and importers face the earlier cutoff in an effort to prevent additional disposable devices from continuing to enter the California market as the retail deadline approaches.

Businesses that violate the new restrictions will face civil penalties beginning at $500, with fines increasing for subsequent violations.

The disposable-vape measure was among a broader package of environmental and public-health legislation signed by Newsom in late September.

California has already imposed some of the nation’s toughest restrictions on tobacco and nicotine products, including a statewide prohibition on the retail sale of most flavored tobacco products. The new law takes a different approach by targeting the physical design and disposability of vaping devices rather than banning vaping altogether.

The exemption for cannabis products creates a notable distinction: Beginning in 2028, a disposable vaping device containing nicotine will be prohibited from retail sale in California, while a comparable disposable device containing cannabis can continue to be legally sold through the state’s licensed marijuana market.

The U.S. Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a significant victory Tuesday, allowing the government to resume expedited deportations of migrants to countries other than their homelands while the justices prepare to decide whether the administration’s controversial “third-country” removal policy is legal.

The court’s order temporarily blocked a lower-court ruling that required the government to provide migrants with notice and a meaningful opportunity to argue that they could face torture or persecution before being deported to a country with which they may have no connection.

The justices also agreed to hear the case on its merits, with oral arguments scheduled for December. That means Tuesday’s action does not constitute a final ruling that the administration’s policy is lawful; rather, it permits the deportations to continue while the Supreme Court considers the broader constitutional and legal questions.

The court’s three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — indicated that they would have denied the administration’s request and allowed the lower-court restrictions to remain in place.

The court did not provide an explanation for its decision, as is common with emergency orders.

The case, Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., centers on the Trump administration’s practice of sending people with final removal orders to so-called third countries when deportation to their country of origin is unavailable or impractical.

Since the policy was expanded after President Trump returned to office, the administration has deported more than 25,000 people to 29 countries under third-country arrangements. The overwhelming majority have been sent to Mexico, but deportees have also been transferred to countries including Liberia, Guyana, South Sudan, Uganda, Equatorial Guinea and the Central African Republic.

Some of those arrangements have been negotiated privately between the United States and foreign governments, with the receiving countries providing assurances that deportees will not be tortured or persecuted.

The administration says the program is particularly important for removing individuals whose home governments refuse to accept them or when other obstacles prevent their repatriation. Officials have also argued that the policy provides a mechanism for deporting individuals with serious criminal records who might otherwise remain in the United States.

The latest Supreme Court intervention came after a three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a ruling by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy finding that the administration’s procedures violated migrants’ due-process rights.

Murphy did not prohibit third-country deportations altogether. Instead, his ruling required the government to provide migrants with sufficient notice of where they would be sent and an opportunity to raise claims that they could face persecution or torture there.

The administration argued that those requirements would severely hinder its ability to carry out deportations and complicate negotiations with foreign governments willing to accept migrants who are not their citizens.

“The government has been able to remove thousands of aliens to third countries in recent months, and thousands more are eligible for such removal,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote.

Federal attorneys told the Supreme Court that the lower-court restrictions had already forced the cancellation of a flight carrying approximately 70 deportees with criminal convictions who were scheduled to be sent to three different countries.

The administration also argued that requiring individualized proceedings before every third-country removal could leave dangerous individuals inside the United States when their native countries refuse to take them back.

“Meanwhile, the very aliens whose removal is most urgent, including those who have committed serious crimes like murder, attempted murder, rape, child rape, kidnapping, and aggravated assault, will be allowed to remain — and often will be released (given practical and legal constraints on detention), to the peril of law-abiding Americans,” the administration told the Supreme Court.

Government lawyers have further maintained that assurances obtained from receiving governments should generally be sufficient to address concerns that deportees could face torture or persecution.

“The decision that a foreign government’s categorial assurance against torture or persecution is sufficient for all aliens is itself a ‘foreign policy’ judgment the Judiciary ‘is not suited’ to question,” the administration’s Supreme Court application said.

Attorneys representing the migrants strongly dispute that position. They contend that blanket diplomatic assurances cannot replace an individual opportunity to explain why a particular person may face imprisonment, persecution, torture or other serious dangers in the proposed destination country.

“Denying a stay does not prevent third-country removals; rather, it simply requires them to do so lawfully,” the Supreme Court filing for the immigrants who challenged the policy said.

Attorneys challenging the administration have also argued that the program extends beyond violent criminals. They say some deportees have no criminal convictions and that others have already been found to face a danger of persecution or torture if returned to their own countries.

Some third-country deportees have reportedly been detained after arriving in countries with which they had no previous connection. Critics of the policy say others have been placed in situations where their only practical option is to return to the homeland from which they originally sought protection.

South Sudan has emerged as one of the most controversial destinations used by the administration. The State Department itself warns Americans against traveling there because of armed conflict, crime and kidnapping.

The legal battle previously reached the Supreme Court after Judge Murphy imposed restrictions on third-country deportations. The justices allowed the administration to proceed with removals while litigation continued, including a closely watched case involving eight men who were ultimately deported to South Sudan.

The dispute took on renewed urgency this month after the 1st Circuit upheld Murphy’s final ruling that the administration’s procedures were unlawful. The administration quickly returned to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to prevent that decision from disrupting its deportation program.

Attorney General Todd Blanche described the administration’s approach as “an entirely lawful and critical tool for immigration enforcement.”

The Supreme Court has now agreed to address not only whether the third-country policy itself is lawful, but also whether the migrants were entitled to bring their challenge and whether the lower federal courts possessed the authority to impose broad restrictions on the administration’s program.

Those questions could produce a ruling with implications extending beyond third-country deportations, particularly as the Trump administration continues its broader effort to sharply increase removals of people living illegally in the United States.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani unveiled a sweeping new strategy Tuesday that he says will combat antisemitism through millions of dollars in security funding, education and hate-crime prevention, but the plan immediately came under sharp criticism from major Jewish organizations, rabbonim and Israeli officials who said it conspicuously avoids confronting anti-Zionism and anti-Israel hostility as major sources of contemporary antisemitism.

The 33-page City Hall strategy, billed by the Mamdani administration as New York City’s first comprehensive municipal plan devoted specifically to combating antisemitism, includes $6.4 million for community-based hate-prevention efforts, another $1 million for security improvements at shuls and other houses of worship, expanded Holocaust and Jewish-history education, and millions more for Jewish cultural projects.

But perhaps the most consequential element of the document is what it does not contain. The plan does not adopt a definition of antisemitism, barely discusses Israel or Zionism, and declines to restore the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism that Mamdani revoked after taking office in January. The IHRA definition includes several examples involving attacks on Israel that can, depending on context, constitute antisemitism.

The UJA-Federation of New York, Jewish Community Relations Council-NY, American Jewish Committee New York and New York Board of Rabbis issued a joint response saying that “any effort to confront antisemitism in New York City must fully address the realities Jewish New Yorkers face today.”

The organizations acknowledged that Mamdani’s strategy contains “a number of positive elements, including some increased security funding for Jewish institutions and expanding proven programs.” But they said it “fails to address a central issue that the mayor himself has perpetuated: rhetoric that demonizes and delegitimizes Israel inevitably leads to the targeting of Jewish New Yorkers.”

“Those who truly seek to address antisemitism must unequivocally reject such rhetoric and help ensure that Jewish New Yorkers are never made to feel suspect, excluded or unsafe in their own city,” the groups said.

The criticism was echoed by Ofir Akunis, Israel’s consul general in New York, who argued that funding security programs cannot substitute for confronting rhetoric directed against Israel.

“Money can’t buy values,” he said.

“Until you recognize that your language against the Jewish state, which you don’t recognize as the homeland of the Jewish people, is the fundamental reason for the rise of antisemitism in New York City, it will continue to increase,” the Israeli envoy told the mayor.

“Truly combating antisemitism requires readopting the IHRA working definition of Antisemitism, which you overturned as the first decision of your administration on day one,” Akunis stated.

“To truly fight antisemitism would be to call for your supporters to stop shouting ‘from the river to the sea’ and ‘globalize the intifada,’ have them condemn the Oct. 7 massacre and instead of supporting Hamas, declare that they are a terror organization,” he added.

Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch, senior rabbi of Manhattan’s Stephen Wise Free Synagogue, said the fundamental problem with the strategy is that it fails to confront what he regards as the connection between the surge in antisemitism and hostility toward Israel. Hirsch also pointed to Mamdani’s own record of accusing Israel of “genocide” and calling for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s arrest.

Hirsch told JNS that “fundamentally, the report is such a disappointment and frankly unworthy of the mayor and administration.”

“Because it omits the central driver of antisemitism which is anti-Israel hostility,” the strategy “of course omits the mayor’s own role in adding to that,” the rabbi said.

The new strategy “will not stop or even slow down the surge of antisemitism in the city as long as the mayor and forces that are opposed to Israel’s existence” speak about Israel as he does, Hirsch told JNS.

Ignoring the connection between anti-Zionism and Jew-hatred “is a big evasion, very disappointing and I think that the mayor knows better,” Hirsch said.

Other Jewish leaders offered similar criticism. Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, praised portions of the plan while arguing that Mamdani himself needs to change the tenor of his rhetoric regarding Israel.

“For this effort to be effective, Mayor Mamdani must also commit to stopping his harsh anti-Israel rhetoric that makes Jewish New Yorkers vulnerable as there are clearly times when antisemitic attacks are fueled by anti-Zionism,” Jacobs said.

The debate comes against troubling statistics. Mamdani himself acknowledged in the introduction to the strategy that Jews constitute a relatively small percentage of the city’s population while accounting for a vastly disproportionate share of reported hate-crime victims.

“The numbers are indisputable: Jewish New Yorkers make up only 12% of our population, yet they are the victims of roughly half of all reported hate crimes,” Mamdani wrote, in an introduction to the report.

Recent NYPD figures provide additional context: during the first seven months of 2026, reported anti-Jewish hate incidents increased by 8.5%, with Jewish victims accounting for 57% of reported hate crimes during that period.

City Hall’s plan points to $26 million that Mamdani previously allocated to the city’s Office for the Prevention of Hate Crimes. Within that broader expenditure, $6.4 million is being directed to the Partners Against the Hate grant program, which supports community organizations working on hate prevention, education, victim assistance, data collection and efforts against online hatred.

The Jewish Community Relations Council of New York is slated to serve as an anchor organization in that initiative. Individual community groups will be eligible for grants of up to $10,000.

An additional $1 million is earmarked for physical security at nonprofit and religious institutions, including shuls. The program is intended in particular to assist smaller institutions that may struggle to qualify for larger federal security grants. Potential upgrades include reinforced locks, shatter-resistant glass and security equipment.

The strategy also calls for reviving an interagency Security Infrastructure Working Group involving the NYPD, Department of Transportation and other agencies to help shuls and Jewish institutions assess vulnerabilities and improve their security.

Education forms another major component. City Hall intends to expand opportunities for eighth-grade public-school students to visit the Museum of Jewish Heritage and continue incorporating Jewish-American history into the school curriculum.

The administration is also committing $2 million toward completion of the Queens Holocaust Memorial and $2.5 million for the Center for New Jewish Culture in Central Brooklyn. A public campaign on LinkNYC kiosks throughout the five boroughs will highlight Jewish contributions to New York.

The strategy describes Jewish life as central to the city’s history and identity. Phylisa Wisdom, executive director of the Mayor’s Office to Combat Antisemitism, described New York as “Jewish people’s front door to America.”

“My administration has zero tolerance for antisemitism. Not on our subways. Not in our workplaces. Not online. Not anywhere,” Mamdani stated. “As mayor, I will use every power entrusted in me to protect Jewish New Yorkers and ensure that Jewish life flourishes for generations to come.”

The administration developed the plan following a five-borough listening tour in which Wisdom’s office met with Jewish New Yorkers representing different levels of religious observance and political views. Mamdani has also held meetings with rabbonim and Orthodox and chassidishe communal leaders as he has attempted to address deep concerns within parts of the city’s Jewish community about his positions on Israel.

Still, the most contentious question — how the city defines antisemitism and when anti-Zionism crosses into Jew-hatred — remains unresolved.

The strategy discusses three different frameworks used to define antisemitism but adopts none of them. Those include the IHRA working definition, the Nexus Document and the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism. City Hall says it can combat antisemitism without formally selecting one definition.

That represents a sharp break with the policy in effect before Mamdani became mayor. On his first day in office, Mamdani rescinded an executive order adopted under Mayor Eric Adams that embraced the IHRA definition. Among the examples contained in the IHRA framework is denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, such as claiming that the existence of Israel as a Jewish state is inherently illegitimate.

Mamdani has been an outspoken opponent of Zionism and has repeatedly accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. During his campaign for mayor, he said he would seek to have Netanyahu arrested if the Israeli prime minister entered New York pursuant to an International Criminal Court warrant, although his administration subsequently acknowledged that City Hall lacks the legal authority to independently carry out such an arrest.

He also drew intense criticism during the campaign after declining at first to condemn the slogan “globalize the intifada.” Mamdani did not himself use the phrase and later said he would discourage its use. He also skipped the city’s annual Israel Day Parade in June.

Netanyahu directly attacked Mamdani from the podium at the United Nations last week, accusing the mayor of helping create an environment in which Jewish New Yorkers feel threatened. Mamdani rejected Netanyahu’s criticism and continued to defend his characterization of Israel’s conduct in Gaza.

The new City Hall document does refer to the October 7, 2023, Hamas massacre and the war that followed in discussing the environment surrounding the rise in antisemitism, but it does not directly identify anti-Zionism as a cause. The report instead places the current surge within a broader timeline of antisemitic activity that includes the 2017 Charlottesville rally and the 2018 massacre at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life shul.

The report states that antisemitism should also be confronted alongside other forms of hatred.

“One form of hatred cannot be combated in a vacuum,” the report states. “Antisemitism can, and must, be addressed hand in hand with all other forms of hatred.”

The strategy also notes that neither the NYPD nor FBI automatically regards demonstrations outside houses of worship as antisemitic or hateful. That issue has been particularly contentious following anti-Israel demonstrations outside shuls hosting events connected to Israel.

City Council Speaker Julie Menin previously pushed legislation requiring the NYPD to develop procedures for buffer zones when demonstrations outside houses of worship involve intimidation, harassment or threats. Mamdani had expressed concerns about restricting lawful protests and ultimately allowed the legislation to become law without his signature.

Eric Dinowitz, co-chairman of the City Council’s Jewish Caucus and its bipartisan task force on antisemitism, welcomed several practical portions of Mamdani’s initiative, particularly those dealing with education and security.

Dinowitz praised the report for “its focus on education, prevention, enforcement and ensuring Jewish New Yorkers can live openly and proudly in our city.” But the mayor’s strategy “misses an opportunity to confront the reality of the intersection between anti-Zionism and antisemitism,” the Jewish council member stated.

“Though Zionism is not an endorsement of a particular Israeli government or political agenda, we cannot ignore that attacking or excluding ‘Zionists’ can and has become a convenient way to disguise antisemitism as political disagreement,” Dinowitz stated.

Not all Jewish communal figures shared those objections. Nancy Kaufman, chair of the progressive New York Jewish Agenda, argued that a municipal strategy focused on Jewish life and safety in New York does not need to center Israel.

“This really is singularly focused on Jews in New York and celebrating Jews in New York, so it doesn’t surprise me that Israel isn’t part of it,” she said. “It hits the right tone and hopefully will reassure Jewish New Yorkers, who have questions about the commitment of the mayor to their safety.”

Brad Lander, the Democratic congressional nominee and ex-New York City comptroller, also backed the initiative.

“Mayor Mamdani’s plan to combat antisemitism is a thoughtful, strategic combination of education for tolerance, enforcement of civil rights and investments in safety,” stated Lander.

“It’s no secret that we don’t all agree on many things, from how we pray to how we relate to Israel, but we can all agree and work together on this: Jewish New Yorkers—like all New Yorkers, and in all our diversity—deserve to be and feel safe in our shuls, streets, homes and workplaces, and to feel a valued and integral part of this extraordinary city that has welcomed us, and where we have welcomed so many others,” Lander stated.

Rabbi Mark Goldfeder, CEO and director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center, offered a considerably harsher assessment, arguing that much of the substance of the new initiative resembles measures pursued by the previous administration while eliminating the components dealing directly with Israel.

“Mamdani’s ‘first-ever’ antisemitism strategy is mostly just the Adams plan that he deleted on day one of his administration but with every page that touches Israel torn out.”

“That is the whole review, the rest is commentary,” he said.

The controversy even reached Albany on Tuesday, where Gov. Kathy Hochul declined to offer a substantive assessment of Mamdani’s plan, saying she had not yet reviewed it in detail. New York State maintains its own approach to defining antisemitism, while state lawmakers have separately pushed legislation to formally codify the IHRA definition.

Hours after releasing the strategy, City Hall announced that Mamdani “will celebrate Sukkot with Jewish New Yorkers.” According to the mayor’s office, the event is “available to invited press only.”

A New Jersey man who arrived at a Washington cathedral with more than 100 operable homemade explosive devices, a nine-page list of demands and threats directed at Jews, Catholics, Supreme Court justices and major government sites has been sentenced to nearly six years in federal prison.

Louis Geri, 42, of Vineland, N.J., was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss to 70 months — five years and 10 months — behind bars, followed by three years of supervised release. Federal prosecutors had asked the judge to impose an 87-month sentence.

Geri pleaded guilty in March to Hobbs Act extortion by wrongful use of force, violence or fear and possession of an unregistered destructive device. The charges stemmed from his arrest outside the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington on Oct. 5, 2025, hours before the annual Red Mass, a high-profile Catholic service traditionally attended by Supreme Court justices, Cabinet members, members of Congress and diplomats.

“Threatening to detonate explosive devices at a house of worship during an important historic religious service, known as the Red Mass, is an attack on our community and on the fundamental right to worship freely,” stated Jeanine Ferris Pirro, U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

Geri “chose to terrorize a sacred space, St. Matthew’s Cathedral, and endanger officers and parishioners, thereby preventing Supreme Court justices from attending an annual religious event,” she stated. “Seventy months in federal prison reflects the seriousness of his conduct and our commitment to protecting every community from extremist threats and violence.”

The incident began on the evening of Oct. 4, when Geri rode a motorcycle to the cathedral on Rhode Island Avenue NW and erected a tent directly on its front steps. Inside, according to federal authorities, he assembled an arsenal of more than 100 homemade explosive devices.

The bombs were made with materials that included nitromethane, magnesium, charcoal and thermite. Authorities said Geri had purchased the materials in Arkansas and assembled the devices in Virginia before bringing them into Washington.

Geri also brought with him nine pages of written demands. Those demands included hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to himself and others, extended accommodations at Washington’s Mayflower Hotel and what he described as an “expatriation flight” to Japan.

Among his more unusual demands, Geri wanted the U.S. Supreme Court to remove Arizona from the United States and formally designate the state a “foreign enemy.”

The documents also contained demands aimed specifically at Catholic and Jewish religious leaders. Police said paperwork found with Geri demonstrated “significant animosity” toward the Roman Catholic Church, Jews and the Supreme Court, as well as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The timing and location of Geri’s actions prompted particular alarm because the Red Mass was scheduled to take place at the cathedral the following morning. The annual service marks the beginning of the Supreme Court’s term and has historically drawn members of the nation’s highest court and other senior government officials. No Supreme Court justices ultimately attended the 2025 service.

At approximately 5 a.m. on Oct. 5, Metropolitan Police Department officers conducting security patrols before the Mass approached Geri’s tent and told him he would have to leave the area.

Geri refused.

He then threatened to throw one of his explosive devices into the street to prove what it could do and warned officers what would happen if federal authorities refused to negotiate with him.

“several of your people are gonna die from one of these,” he told officers, if federal agents did not accept his demands.

Police established a barricade around the tent as the confrontation continued. At approximately 5:53 a.m., Geri briefly stepped outside, giving officers an opportunity to take him into custody.

Investigators found an explosive device in Geri’s pocket along with a butane lighter. A subsequent search of his tent uncovered more than 100 additional explosive devices.

The FBI later tested the devices and determined that they were genuine, operable improvised explosive devices — rather than inert props or fake bombs.

After his arrest, Geri waived his Miranda rights and referred to his homemade devices as “grenades” and “rockets.” He admitted that he planned to use threats of violence to force government officials to negotiate with him.

Geri also acknowledged that he was prepared to use the explosives against people and property. The potential targets he identified included St. Matthew’s Cathedral itself, the White House, the Washington Monument, the U.S. Capitol and the Supreme Court.

Federal prosecutors said the evidence left little ambiguity about the danger posed by Geri’s actions.

“The defendant’s intent was clear: If his list of demands was not met, innocent people would die and prominent, historic landmarks, such as the Washington Monument, the Supreme Court, and the White House, would be destroyed,” prosecutors wrote.

At sentencing, Judge Moss described the incident as extraordinarily dangerous while also considering Geri’s documented psychiatric history and his need for treatment.

“This was an extremely serious offense,” the judge said. “It may have been carried out in a bizarre manner, but the threat of violence was a serious one.”

Geri’s defense attorney, Elizabeth Mullin, told the court that her client had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder more than two decades earlier and had stopped taking his medication during the months preceding the cathedral incident.

“His conduct was the product of a treatable medical condition spiraling out of control, not malice or an actual intent to harm,” Mullin wrote.

The prosecution and defense had previously agreed that a sentence ranging from five years and 10 months to seven years and three months would be appropriate under Geri’s plea agreement. Moss ultimately selected the bottom of that range, imposing the 70-month sentence.

A frightening Chol Hamoed outing in Kiamesha ended b’chasdei Hashem with everyone safely back on shore Tuesday after a boat carrying what appeared to be a family overturned in cold water near Route 42, prompting Catskills Hatzolah members to race into the water to reach the stranded passengers.

Everyone aboard the vessel was wearing a life vest when the boat overturned, a precaution that proved critical as the occupants suddenly found themselves in the water. The group remained afloat and was ultimately able to hold onto another boat while rescuers made their way toward them.

The incident occurred in Kiamesha, in Sullivan County’s Town of Thompson, during Chol Hamoed. The area, located along Route 42 between Monticello and Fallsburg, has a substantial frum population during the summer and Yom Tov periods.

As word of the overturned boat reached emergency responders, Catskills Hatzolah members rushed to the scene. One Hatzolah volunteer who arrived at the water grabbed another boat from the shoreline and immediately began paddling toward the stranded group.

At the same time, four other Hatzolah members did not wait on shore for additional water-rescue equipment. Still fully dressed, they jumped directly into the cold water and began swimming toward the family.

The occupants of the overturned vessel managed to remain together and hold onto another boat until rescuers reached them. The Hatzolah members and other emergency personnel then assisted the group and brought everyone safely back to shore.

Catskills Hatzolah personnel were joined by additional emergency responders at the scene. There were no reports of serious injuries, and everyone involved was reported to be okay following the rescue.

The primary medical concern after the rescue was exposure to the cold water. No reports indicated that anyone suffered life-threatening injuries or required treatment for a serious drowning-related condition.

The incident highlighted the potentially lifesaving importance of wearing flotation devices while boating. Because everyone aboard was reportedly wearing a life vest before the vessel capsized, they were able to remain above water as rescuers made their way out to them.

Catskills Hatzolah maintains a substantial year-round operation across Sullivan County and also operates a dedicated search-and-rescue capability for emergencies throughout the sprawling Catskills region.

Tuesday’s incident could easily have ended very differently. Instead, through the immediate response of Hatzolah members, the fact that the passengers were properly wearing life vests and tremendous Siyata Dishmaya, the entire group was brought safely out of the water.

B’chasdei Hashem, all were reported safe following the frightening ordeal.

{Matzav.com}

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and the state Cabinet voted Tuesday to officially designate the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim Brotherhood and more than 90 other groups as terrorist organizations, activating a sweeping new state law that could strip designated organizations of public funding and contracts, force certain entities to dissolve and impose penalties on those who provide them with material support.

The action represents the latest and most consequential step in DeSantis’ months-long effort to use Florida law to target organizations his administration says are connected to terrorism. The designations are scheduled to take effect on Nov. 5, although CAIR and civil-liberties organizations are already seeking to have the measure blocked in federal court.

The Florida Cabinet approved the designations with little discussion and without taking public testimony. The panel consists of DeSantis, Attorney General James Uthmeier, Chief Financial Officer Blaise Ingoglia and Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson.

Florida officials said the action includes domestic terrorist designations for CAIR, its Florida chapter, the Muslim Brotherhood and the anti-fascist movement known as antifa. The state also designated more than 90 foreign organizations already listed by the federal government as foreign terrorist organizations, among them al-Qaeda, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Houthis, the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang and Mexican drug cartels.

A more than 400-page package prepared for Tuesday’s Cabinet meeting laid out the state’s case against the organizations. In addressing CAIR specifically, Florida asserted that “there is substantial evidence that CAIR is engaging in terrorist activity” and cited alleged connections between the organization and Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

State officials also pointed to CAIR’s history in connection with the Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing prosecution. CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in that federal case, in which the Holy Land Foundation and five of its leaders were convicted in 2008 of providing millions of dollars to Hamas.

CAIR describes itself as “America’s largest Muslim civil liberties organization” and has stressed that the organization itself has never been criminally charged.

The latest action follows an earlier attempt by DeSantis to impose similar restrictions through executive authority. In December 2025, he signed an executive order designating CAIR as a terrorist organization and directing state agencies to deny the group and those providing it material support access to state and local contracts, employment, funding and other public benefits.

CAIR and CAIR-Florida challenged that order in federal court. In March, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking its enforcement, finding that CAIR was likely to succeed on its argument that the order violated the First Amendment by pressuring third parties to cut ties with the organization. DeSantis appealed that decision to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Florida lawmakers subsequently gave the governor and Cabinet an entirely new statutory mechanism to make terrorist designations. The legislation, HB 1471, took effect July 1 and authorizes Florida’s chief of domestic security to recommend that organizations be labeled domestic or foreign terrorist organizations, subject to approval by the governor and Cabinet.

Under the law, a group can be classified as a domestic terrorist organization if it operates in Florida or elsewhere in the United States, is found to be engaged in terrorist activity and is determined to represent an ongoing threat to Florida or the country.

The legislation carries potentially far-reaching consequences for groups that receive the designation. Florida can move to legally dissolve certain designated organizations, while individuals who knowingly provide prohibited material support can face criminal penalties.

The law also reaches Florida’s educational system. Students in the Florida College System who promote designated terrorist organizations can face expulsion under specified circumstances, while state colleges and universities are barred from using public money to support programs or activities that promote such groups.

The statute defines prohibited student promotion in part through conduct that can reasonably be interpreted as an actual threat of violence, materially disrupts the educational environment, violates the rights of others or provides material support or recruitment assistance to a designated organization.

Schools affiliated with designated terrorist groups can also lose access to Florida’s K-12 scholarship funding programs.

DeSantis has described the broader legislation as an “anti-Sharia law” and, when it took effect July 1, immediately announced his intention to make CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood among the first organizations targeted under its provisions.

The initial designation effort was temporarily put on hold after CAIR and CAIR-Florida filed another federal lawsuit challenging the new statutory system. State officials told the court in July that no designation would take place until the Florida Department of Law Enforcement established regulations governing the process.

FDLE subsequently adopted an emergency rule on Sept. 11 setting out procedures for making the designations, clearing the way for Tuesday’s Cabinet vote.

DeSantis said at the time that the new system provides “an appropriate framework, where the state can take action appropriately to be able to defend the people of Florida against hostile actors and terrorists groups.”

The ACLU, ACLU of Florida and Southern Poverty Law Center are representing CAIR and CAIR-Florida in their challenge to the law. Their attorneys contend that Florida has created a system that allows state officials to stigmatize and effectively cripple domestic organizations without adequate due process.

“Gov. DeSantis’s use of Florida’s dangerous new ‘terrorism’ designation regime against CAIR and its Florida chapter is baseless and unconstitutional,” Hina Shamsi, director of ACLU’s national security project, stated on Tuesday.

“There are simply no legitimate grounds to brand our clients with a reviled label, impose crippling criminal penalties and force them to shut their doors in Florida,” Shamsi said.

Shamsi said CAIR filed a written objection ahead of Tuesday’s meeting and that she sought permission to address the Cabinet on behalf of CAIR-Florida but was not recognized to speak.

She separately challenged the factual basis Florida offered for designating the organization.

“There is nowhere in that notice any allegation or evidence that CAIR has engaged in any violent or dangerous act in violation of Florida or U.S. law,” Shamsi said Tuesday outside the Cabinet meeting. “And that’s the first requirement for something as serious as this.”

Shamsi said CAIR-Florida functions as a nonprofit civil-rights organization whose work includes representing individuals alleging government violations of their rights, conducting rights-awareness programs and advocating on public-policy issues.

“Like any other U.S. nonprofit, in Florida and around the country, they carry out ‘know your rights’ trainings, they engage with and represent community members whose rights have been violated by government action,” Shamsi said. “They speak up for and against government policies. They are representing their communities and they’re doing it every single day here in this state, for the benefit of the people of Florida.”

The ACLU says it plans to seek a preliminary injunction preventing the latest designation from taking effect.

“When the designation goes into effect, because this is steamrolling its way forward, and if it is not prevented, our clients will be unable to carry out their constitutionally protected activities in this state,” Shamsi said. “And that, as we have said, and I would have said today, is in violation of their due process rights under the (U.S.) Constitution and in violation of their First Amendment rights, among other things.”

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, however, said Tuesday’s action “drew a line on terrorism.”

“The free state of Florida will not launder terrorism through our schools,” he said. “We will name these groups, cut off the money and hold those who bankroll them accountable.”

The legal fight is now expected to intensify ahead of Nov. 5, when the designations are scheduled to formally take effect. CAIR and its attorneys are arguing that Florida’s new system violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments, while the DeSantis administration maintains that the state now has statutory authority to identify organizations it concludes are engaged in terrorist activity and prevent Florida institutions and taxpayer funds from supporting them.

New York Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Blakeman unveiled a sweeping tax proposal Tuesday that would eliminate New York state income taxes altogether for many lower- and middle-income residents while sharply reducing the bills of many others, as he makes affordability a centerpiece of his campaign against Gov. Kathy Hochul, the New York Post reports.

The Nassau County executive said that if elected in November, he would exempt the first $50,000 earned by individual filers and the first $100,000 earned by married couples from state income taxes. Under the proposal, households whose taxable income falls entirely within those thresholds would owe no state income tax.

Blakeman said the average married-couple income in 45 of New York’s 62 counties is below $100,000, meaning the plan could completely eliminate state income taxes for many households across much of upstate and rural New York.

“[Gov.] Kathy Hochul made New York the highest taxed state in the nation by taxing paychecks, electric bills and driving up every possible expense in your household. That ends when I am governor,” Blakeman said.

“I am proposing the largest middle-class income tax cut in New York state history to make New York affordable and put thousands of dollars back where it belongs — in your pocket.”

New York’s unusually heavy tax burden has prompted some critics to derisively dub it the “Vampire State,” a play on its traditional Empire State nickname.

An analysis released last week by the nonpartisan Citizens Budget Commission found that, when state and local taxes are combined, New York has the highest per-resident tax burden in the country. The group also found that New York collects more personal income tax per $1,000 of personal income than any other state.

According to the analysis cited in the report, New York’s personal income tax collections relative to income are 94% above the national average. They are also 13% higher than California’s, 23% above Massachusetts’ and 42% higher than Connecticut’s.

Under the existing system, an individual earning approximately $50,000 pays around $2,100 annually in New York state income taxes, while a married couple earning $100,000 pays approximately $4,200.

Under Blakeman’s proposal, both of those taxpayers would see their state income tax liability fall to zero.

The plan would move New York significantly closer, for many earners, to states such as Florida, Texas and Tennessee, which levy no state individual income tax.

New York currently employs a progressive income tax system in which rates rise as income increases. Rates begin at 4% for lower-income taxpayers and climb to 9.65% for individuals and families earning more than $5 million, while those earning more than $25 million face a 10.9% rate.

A married couple earning $250,000 currently faces a top marginal rate of 6% and pays approximately $13,000 in state income taxes. An individual earning $100,000 also reaches a 6% top marginal rate and pays roughly $5,000 annually.

Blakeman’s proposal would reduce the $250,000 couple’s state income tax bill to approximately $6,000, according to his campaign, while the individual earning $100,000 would see the bill fall to roughly $2,000.

His campaign also said taxpayers earning between $100,000 and $500,000 would see their tax rate reduced to 4%, compared with current rates ranging from 6% to 6.85%. A similar tax structure — exempting the first $50,000 for individuals and $100,000 for married couples and applying a 4% rate above those thresholds through specified income levels — was proposed earlier this year by New York Senate Republicans.

The Blakeman campaign did not immediately provide details about what tax rates would apply to New York’s highest-income residents under his proposal.

Blakeman’s office estimated that the overall package would reduce state tax collections by approximately $35 billion, raising the question of how Albany would replace such a large amount of revenue.

Blakeman, who is challenging Hochul in the November 3 gubernatorial election, said he expects stronger economic growth and reductions in what he considers wasteful government spending to make up for the lost revenue.

“My plan pays for itself by stopping the ‘Hochul Exodus’ of businesses and families to other states, keeping our tax base right here in New York,” he said.

The proposal recalls the successful 1994 gubernatorial campaign of George Pataki, the last Republican to serve as governor of New York. Pataki campaigned heavily on cutting income taxes, and tax reductions were enacted after he took office the following year.

Hochul’s campaign pushed back against Blakeman’s proposal and defended the governor’s record on taxes.

“While Governor Hochul fights tooth and nail for New Yorkers, cutting middle-class taxes to their lowest rate in 70 years, Bruce Blakeman did the opposite: he jacked up property taxes twice. New York families can’t afford a record like his, and are ready to reject his ‘MAGA all the way’ agenda in November,” said Hochul campaign spokesperson Ryan Radulovacki.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has repeatedly contrasted his state’s tax and regulatory policies with those of New York, describing Florida as the “free state” and pointing to the movement of residents from New York to Florida.

“New York leads the nation in out-migration,” he said. “Florida is seeing people coming in droves. Why is that? When people look at a state like Florida, they know that their money is going to go further.”

Texas has also increasingly competed with New York for financial-sector jobs and now employs more people in financial services, despite New York’s longstanding position as the world’s leading financial center.

“Over the past decade, the state [Texas] has combined tax advantages, legal modernization, workforce growth, and aggressive economic development tools to attract headquarters, talent, and capital,” the Partnership for the City of New York said in a report released in February.

Larisa Amir-Trimbobler, the wife of Yigal Amir, has sharply criticized Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir after prison authorities rejected Amir’s request for a one-time humanitarian furlough to visit his seriously ill 85-year-old father.

Amir, who assassinated Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin in 1995 and has now been imprisoned for nearly 31 years, submitted an urgent request approximately three weeks ago after his father’s medical condition reportedly deteriorated significantly.

According to the family, Amir’s father is suffering from advanced cancer that has metastasized to his spine and bones, in addition to diabetes and a history of serious heart procedures.

Amir sought permission to leave prison for a single visit with his father under whatever security restrictions authorities deemed necessary.

Trimbobler said that during the three weeks in which the request was being considered, Amir was repeatedly asked to complete forms, provide specific dates and submit the names of individuals who would serve as guarantors.

According to her, those requests led Amir and his family to believe that authorities were seriously considering granting the humanitarian furlough.

The eventual response, however, was a categorical rejection.

Amir’s attorney was informed that security and intelligence officials opposed allowing him to leave prison because of concerns regarding the danger authorities continue to believe he poses. Prison officials also determined that the medical documentation submitted did not meet the requirements for an exceptional furlough under Israel Prison Service regulations.

Amir has been classified by Israeli authorities as a security prisoner, and Israeli courts have repeatedly upheld significant restrictions imposed upon him based on security assessments.

Trimbobler responded with a sharply worded and sarcastic letter questioning how authorities could view a brief, supervised visit by the 56-year-old prisoner as a threat to national security.

“The State of Israel will undoubtedly be in danger if a 56-year-old prisoner, who has already served 31 years behind bars, spends a day or half a day with his seriously ill father,” she wrote.

She also directed criticism at Ben Gvir, questioning why the national security minister had not intervened to permit the humanitarian visit.

Trimbobler argued that approving such a request could even have benefited Ben Gvir politically, despite the intense criticism that such a decision would inevitably have generated.

She further wrote sarcastically that it appeared the authorities would consider the medical circumstances sufficiently serious “only when the patient is, Heaven forbid, on his deathbed.”

This is not the first time Amir has sought temporary release from prison on humanitarian or family grounds.

In 2020, Amir requested a special furlough to attend the bar mitzvah of his son. Prison authorities rejected that application as well, citing the positions of intelligence and security officials, and a court subsequently upheld the decision.

Amir had offered at the time to leave prison for only several hours and comply with any security conditions imposed upon him. His attorney argued that Prison Service regulations permitted special furloughs for significant family events, including the bar mitzvah of an inmate’s child.

The court nevertheless rejected his petition, although it said Amir could request an expanded visit with immediate family members inside the prison to mark the occasion.

Amir also sought a furlough surrounding the birth of his son in 2007, but that request was not granted. He has never been permitted a regular furlough during his decades of incarceration.

In another recent dispute with prison authorities, Amir petitioned the Lod District Court after the Israel Prison Service refused to permit him to study Torah b’chavrusa with another prisoner in the secured wing. Amir argued that the restriction prevented him from fully exercising his religious rights.

Amir is serving a life sentence plus additional prison terms for Rabin’s assassination, the wounding of Rabin’s security guard and conspiracy offenses.

Trimbobler contrasted her husband’s treatment with that of other high-profile Israeli prisoners who have previously received furloughs under tightly controlled conditions.

One example cited in the broader debate is Ehud Olmert, who was permitted his first furlough approximately five months after beginning his prison sentence and left under Shin Bet security.

Trimbobler argues that after more than three decades behind bars, the continued refusal to allow Amir even a tightly supervised humanitarian visit with his gravely ill father cannot reasonably be justified by the security considerations cited by authorities.

Thousands of bnei Torah are expected to gather in Yerushalayim Tuesday evening for a massive procession and celebration honoring approximately 50 bochurim and avreichim who were recently imprisoned by the IDF amid the escalating battle over the drafting of yeshiva students.

The large-scale event, taking place during Chol Hamoed Sukkos, is being organized as a public demonstration of support for those who were arrested by military police or transferred to military authorities after encounters with Israel Police because of their draft status.

The procession is scheduled to begin at approximately 8:30 p.m. from the intersection of Malchei Yisrael and Brandeis streets and continue through the Bar Ilan area, with thousands expected to participate.

At the center of the event will be the recently released prisoners themselves, who have become known in the chareidi community as “Prisoners of the Torah World.”

A major portion of the program will be devoted to siyumei masechtos completed by the prisoners during their time behind bars. Organizers say the masechtos were learned during the detainees’ extended stays in military prison, turning the celebration into both a welcome-home event and a siyum marking their Torah learning while incarcerated.

Leading Gedolei Yisroel and rabbonim are expected to participate and deliver addresses focusing on the current draft battle and the determination of yeshiva students to continue their Torah learning.

Another major moment of the evening is expected to be the presentation of special financial grants to the released prisoners. The money was donated by prominent supporters overseas as an expression of appreciation for what organizers describe as the prisoners’ mesirus nefesh for limud haTorah.

The event is being organized by the Notnim Gav organization and follows a series of large receptions held across the country in recent months for yeshiva students and avreichim released from military prison.

The gathering is expected to have a substantial impact on traffic across central and northern Yerushalayim.

Beginning at 7 p.m., Malchei Yisrael, Yeshayahu, Strauss, Yechezkel, Shmuel Hanavi and Shimon Hatzaddik streets were scheduled to be closed to vehicular traffic. The closures are expected to remain in place until late Tuesday night.

Public transportation routes have also been altered at the direction of police.

Bus routes 1 and 111 were diverted through Betzalel and Hanevi’im streets, while routes 3 and 333 serving the Kosel were redirected through Chaim Bar-Lev Boulevard rather than Shmuel Hanavi Street.

Tuesday night’s gathering is the latest — and one of the largest — in a wave of elaborate public receptions organized for those imprisoned amid the ongoing draft crisis.

In June, thousands packed the streets of Beitar Illit to welcome home avreich Yaakov Muzari and bochur Yonatan Nitzotzi following their release from military prison.

Hundreds of children joined that procession carrying flags, while the two released prisoners traveled through the city in a special vehicle as residents danced along the route and watched from balconies.

The procession culminated in a large reception attended by the city’s rabbonim.

Rav Chaim Weiss, Rav of the city, opened the gathering by describing it as an opportunity to express gratitude for the release of the two prisoners while remembering the bochurim and avreichim who remained incarcerated.

Rav Yaakov Tufik Abiezri also addressed the gathering and offered words of encouragement to those standing firm amid the draft controversy.

A similarly emotional reception was held in Ashdod for Elchonon Mizrachi, a talmid of Yeshivas Tiferes Yonasan Yehoshua, following his release from military prison.

Large crowds waited for Mizrachi near his home, greeting him with singing and dancing as he arrived.

He was lifted onto the shoulders of participants while the crowd celebrated his return and expressed admiration for his refusal to abandon his position during his imprisonment.

Rav Yisroel Meir Zavichi, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivas Tiferes Yonasan Yehoshua, praised his talmid’s resolve. Rav Meir Vaknin, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivas Lev Yitzchak in Ashdod, subsequently delivered words of chizuk, followed by Rav Yuval Avraham.

Another reception was held at the Temimei Derech bais medrash in Beit Shemesh for several released prisoners, including Breslover chassidim who had spent approximately a week in custody after participating in demonstrations connected to the draft battle.

The released prisoners arrived at the bais medrash dressed in their Shabbos clothing and were greeted by musicians playing songs of gratitude as members of the community and other local residents danced for an extended period.

Among those prominently participating were the community’s children, who danced in the center of the celebration while watching the released prisoners.

The receptions have become an increasingly visible feature of the chareidi campaign against the arrest of yeshiva students.

Earlier this summer, another major campaign brought thousands of vehicles onto Israeli roads in a convoy protesting the imprisonment of yeshiva students. Organizers at the time described the demonstrations as an effort to show public solidarity with those being held in military prison.

Tuesday night’s Yerushalayim procession takes that campaign a step further, bringing dozens of the released prisoners together for a single mass event featuring dancing, speeches, siyumim and financial awards honoring their imprisonment.

Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu has launched a sweeping NIS 2.6 million defamation lawsuit against several of Israel’s largest media organizations and prominent journalists, accusing them of spreading what he calls “two blood libels” alleging that he personally received warnings from senior Egyptian and Emirati officials shortly before the October 7 massacre and failed to alert Israel’s security establishment.
​
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Yerushalayim District Court, names Haaretz, Yedioth Achronot, Ynet and Channel 12 News among the defendants, along with journalists Shlomi Eldar, Ruti Yuval, Uri Misgav, Nadav Eyal, Barak Ravid and Attila Somfalvi.
​
Netanyahu is seeking a combined NIS 2.6 million in damages over reports involving two separate alleged warnings in the weeks preceding Hamas’ October 7, 2023, invasion.
​
The suit was filed on Netanyahu’s behalf by attorney Uriel Nizri and marks the fulfillment of threats the prime minister issued after the disputed reports began appearing earlier this month.
​
At the center of the first allegation is a report that UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed personally spoke with Netanyahu approximately a week and a half before October 7 and warned him that Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar was preparing a “major move.”
​
The original account alleged that the conversation lasted approximately 45 minutes and that bin Zayed warned Netanyahu that Sinwar was planning an “event of great significance” that could result in bloodshed, destabilize the Middle East and jeopardize the Abraham Accords.
​
According to the published account, Netanyahu allegedly responded that he was more concerned at the time about developments in Yehuda and Shomron and did not subsequently relay the Emirati warning to the heads of Israel’s security establishment.
​
Netanyahu says the conversation never happened.
​
The Prime Minister’s Office previously said that checks conducted with the relevant government bodies, including the National Security Council and the prime minister’s military secretariat, found no documentation of any such conversation between Netanyahu and bin Zayed during the period in question.
​
Netanyahu announced earlier this month that he intended to sue Haaretz and those responsible for the report, describing the allegation as a politically motivated fabrication published in the run-up to Israel’s October 27 election.
​
“This is a sinister libel with clear political timing, as part of the left’s election campaign, and there will be more such false libels,” Netanyahu said at the time.
​
The second allegation addressed in Tuesday’s lawsuit concerns Egypt and Abbas Kamel, who was then the powerful head of Egypt’s General Intelligence Service.
​
Recent reports have alleged that Egypt repeatedly warned Israel during the months before October 7 that conditions in Gaza were becoming dangerously unstable and that Hamas could be preparing for a major escalation.
​
One of those reports said Kamel made a secret visit to Israel on September 26, 2023, just 11 days before the massacre, and warned Israeli officials that Gaza was approaching an explosion.
​
That warning, according to the reports, did not include a specific date, targets or details of the operation Hamas ultimately launched.
​
The more explosive allegation, and the one challenged by Netanyahu in his lawsuit, is that Kamel subsequently contacted Netanyahu personally approximately 10 days before October 7 and warned him about unusual developments emanating from Gaza.
​
Netanyahu categorically denies that any such contact occurred.
​
“No meeting and/or conversation whatsoever took place between the Prime Minister and the President of the United Arab Emirates, nor did any meeting and/or conversation take place between the Prime Minister and Egyptian Intelligence Minister Abbas Kamel on the dates alleged or at any point between the beginning of September 2023 and October 7, 2023,” the lawsuit states.
​
Netanyahu’s office has separately said that he generally does not hold meetings or conversations with foreign intelligence chiefs without their Israeli counterparts being involved.
​
“In the months before October 7, Prime Minister Netanyahu did not meet or speak with Abbas Kamel, who was then head of Egypt’s General Intelligence Service, and no Israeli intelligence official conveyed an Egyptian warning to the prime minister.”
​
The underlying Egyptian claim has nevertheless received additional attention because reports of an Egyptian warning surfaced almost immediately after the massacre.
​
Days after October 7, then-U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul publicly said that Egyptian officials had warned Israel shortly before the attack.
​
“We know that Egypt had warned the Israelis three days prior that an event like this could happen,” McCaul said at the time.
​
What has remained disputed ever since is precisely what Egypt knew, how specific its warnings were, which Israeli officials received them and whether any warning reached Netanyahu personally.
​
The latest reporting has dramatically intensified that dispute by alleging direct communications at the highest levels — an assertion Netanyahu is now asking the court to declare defamatory.
​
The controversy has also expanded beyond the courtroom.
​
Netanyahu traveled secretly to Abu Dhabi over the weekend and met with UAE President bin Zayed. Reports subsequently claimed that one purpose of the meeting was to persuade the Emirati leader to publicly deny that he had warned Netanyahu before October 7.
​
Netanyahu’s office rejected that account as false and said the meeting dealt with bilateral relations and regional security matters.
​
The UAE publicly confirmed that the two leaders met but has not issued the sweeping public denial of the alleged pre-October 7 warning that Netanyahu’s critics have demanded.
​
Netanyahu has accused political opponents and elements of the Israeli media of attempting to use the reports to shift responsibility for October 7 onto him as Israel approaches its first national election since the massacre.
​
The prime minister has instead focused attention on the conduct of Israel’s military and intelligence chiefs, particularly during the hours immediately preceding the Hamas invasion.
​
He has argued that senior security officials were discussing troubling indications from Gaza during the night of October 6-7 but failed to wake him or adequately warn him that Hamas might be preparing an attack.
​
Netanyahu has specifically accused then-Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar of failing to properly alert him or take sufficient action despite indications that something unusual was unfolding in Gaza.
​
Bar has vehemently rejected those accusations and, in an extraordinary escalation of the public battle over responsibility for October 7, announced that he intends to file his own defamation lawsuit against Netanyahu.
​
The dueling legal threats come as the question of what Israel’s political and security leadership knew before October 7 has become one of the central issues in the country’s election campaign, with Netanyahu’s opponents demanding a state commission of inquiry and the prime minister maintaining that the full record will ultimately demonstrate that he was not provided with the warnings now being attributed to him.

A Melbourne Islamic preacher has triggered outrage across Australia after telling followers during a sermon that Muslims should not take Jews and Christians as friends and speaking of an obligation to “take up arms” against the enemies of Islam, prompting condemnation from Jewish leaders, Muslim leaders and politicians and renewed demands for tougher action against extremist preaching.
​
The preacher, who goes by Abu Ahmad, is associated with the Al Bayyinah Islamic Centre in Melbourne’s southeast. His comments were delivered during a sermon in July and subsequently circulated through the center’s social-media channels.
​
During the address, Ahmad told his audience not to “take the Jews and the Christians for friends” and discussed the Islamic theological concept of loyalty and disavowal.
​
“For the sake of Allah, it includes the obligation to declare enmity for his sake, opposition for the sake of Allah. It is to declare opposition: indeed, to take up arms against his enemies, to shun them and to stay far from them both in word and deed,” Ahmad said.
​
“This proves that simple opposition of the spirit is not enough and that it must be complete by honouring of your commitment.”
​
Ahmad went on to identify a broad range of groups he described as enemies of Islam.
​
“If the aim of the enemies of Islam whether they are atheists or Jews or Christians or modernists or Zionists or communists is the emasculation of … Muslims, and the erosion of their unique character in order to make them the ass of the chosen people … then the urgency of this issue should become clear to every Muslim,” he said.
​
The remarks have attracted particular scrutiny because of Ahmad’s connections to controversial Sydney preacher Wissam Haddad and the network surrounding Haddad’s Al Madina Dawah Centre in Bankstown.
​
The Al Bayyinah Islamic Centre was established in Melbourne’s southeast in 2024 and has received support from Haddad, whose Sydney center was shut earlier this year.
​
Ahmad has previously traveled to Haddad’s Sydney center, where he delivered a sermon attacking what he described as “infidel” Western powers.
​
The Melbourne center has also shared material online with an account known as Station of the Seekers, which has featured individuals identified as Islamic State sympathizers.
​
Haddad has publicly encouraged his Melbourne followers to support Ahmad and his activities.
​
The connections have received intensified scrutiny since the December 2025 terrorist attack on a Chanukah celebration at Bondi Beach, in which 15 people were murdered and dozens wounded.
​
One of the two alleged attackers, Naveed Akram, had reportedly attended Haddad’s Al Madina Dawah Centre. There is no evidence that either Haddad or Ahmad participated in the Bondi attack, and Ahmad has not been charged with a terrorism offense in connection with his sermon.
​
Ahmad has now pushed back against the characterization of his remarks as an instruction to attack Jews or Christians.
​
He says the excerpts came from a religious lesson in which he was reading and explaining passages from an Islamic scholarly text dealing with the doctrine of al-Wala’ wal-Bara’, or loyalty and disavowal.
​
Ahmad maintains that his remarks were presented without the surrounding context and says the teaching does not permit Muslims to harm peaceful non-Muslims.
​
He has accused media outlets of portraying theological material as a personal call for violence.
​
The Australian National Imams Council has nevertheless responded to the controversy by strongly condemning any rhetoric encouraging violence.
​
ANIC president Imam Shadi Alsuleiman said Islam upholds the sanctity of human life and that Muslims living in Australia have an obligation to contribute positively to the country and live peacefully alongside their neighbors.
​
The council stressed that incitement to violence against Jews, Christians or any other community is unacceptable while cautioning against using the conduct of individual preachers to condemn Australia’s broader Muslim population.
​
The controversy has also triggered calls for law-enforcement authorities to examine Ahmad’s complete sermon and determine whether Australian criminal laws were violated.
​
One Nation leader Pauline Hanson demanded that the federal government provide security agencies with stronger powers to close religious institutions that promote violence and dismantle networks involved in extremist recruitment.
​
“Fifteen people were murdered in a terrorist act at Bondi,” Hanson said. “Now Australians are reading reports of an Islamic preacher urging followers to take up arms against Australian Christians and Jews. How much more do Albanese and Burke need to hear?”
​
“We need stronger federal powers to shut down the extremist and fundamentalist mosques and Islamic prayer centers,” Hanson said. “Give ASIO and the AFP the resources and targeted powers to dismantle these networks. If current laws are inadequate, change them.”
​
Independent MP Allegra Spender, whose Sydney electorate includes Bondi Beach, said the episode demonstrates the need for stronger and more consistent national hate-speech legislation.
​
Spender said Ahmad’s comments showed “why we needed stronger and nationally consistent hate speech legislation”.
​
“I hope the royal commission will make recommendations relating to this, but regardless, I will continue the push and urge all politicians who express sincere concern about hate preachers to back stronger protections,” Spender said.
​
Robert Gregory, president of the Australian Jewish Association, said the case demonstrated what he described as a continuing failure by authorities to adequately confront radical Islamic preaching following the Bondi massacre.
​
“It is hard to believe that this long after the Bondi terrorist attack, Australia has still not seen a major crackdown on radical Islamic preachers and extremist religious centers,” Gregory said.
​
“Australians are rightly alarmed by reports of a preacher speaking about an obligation to ‘take up arms’ against enemies and telling followers not to take Jews and Christians as friends.”
​
Family First National Director Lyle Shelton separately called on the Australian Federal Police to examine Ahmad’s remarks and determine whether they constitute a criminal offense.
​
“This is chilling language which demands an urgent response from law enforcement,” Shelton said.
​
“Australians should not have to tolerate preachers using places of worship or social media platforms to promote hostility towards Christians, Jews or anyone else, let alone language about taking up arms.”
​
“The AFP should examine the full, unedited sermon and all relevant material and determine whether Commonwealth criminal laws have been breached. If the evidence establishes an offence, Abu Ahmad should be charged.”
​
“Australia has religious freedom, but religious freedom is not a licence to incite violence.”
​
The uproar has reopened a bitter political debate over Australia’s hate-speech laws, just eight months after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government attempted to dramatically expand federal legislation following the Bondi massacre.
​
The original proposal would have created a federal criminal offense for publicly promoting or inciting racial hatred, alongside tougher penalties for hate crimes and new powers aimed at extremist organizations.
​
The proposal ran into opposition from both sides of Australian politics.
​
The Coalition objected to elements of the legislation on free-speech and drafting grounds, while the Greens argued that the protections were too narrow and could interfere with legitimate political expression.
​
Albanese ultimately abandoned the proposed racial-vilification offense after acknowledging that it lacked the votes needed to pass Parliament.
​
A narrower package of hate-crime measures did pass in January. Those laws strengthened penalties for hate offenses, expanded the government’s ability to cancel visas and deport foreign nationals associated with designated hate groups, established a mechanism for banning organizations that promote hatred, and imposed tougher penalties on religious and other leaders who advocate violence.
​
The specific racial-vilification provision sought by Australia’s special envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal, was left out.
​
Australian security officials have meanwhile repeatedly warned that the country’s extremist threat is growing.
​
ASIO Director-General Mike Burgess has said the underlying terrorism environment is more dangerous than the formal national threat level alone might suggest, with authorities increasingly concerned about rapidly radicalized individuals, online extremist material and young people moving toward violence.
​
Those concerns have been reinforced by a series of recent terrorism investigations in Victoria.
​
Just last week, Australian authorities charged a 65-year-old Melbourne man with terrorism offenses after alleging that he had pledged allegiance to Islamic State and distributed approximately 10,000 files of extremist propaganda online.
​
Investigators allege that the material included videos of executions and torture, Islamic State propaganda and instructions relating to mass-casualty attacks and avoiding law enforcement.
​
Authorities have said that case is separate from the controversy involving Ahmad, and there has been no allegation that Ahmad is an Islamic State member or was involved in the alleged propaganda network.

[Video below.] New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani says the explanation for his unexpectedly cordial relationship with President Donald Trump is surprisingly simple: despite their deep political disagreements, the two share an attachment to New York City and have found concrete issues on which they can work together — particularly Mamdani’s ambitious plan to build 12,000 homes over Sunnyside Yard in Queens.
​
Appearing Monday night on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” during the program’s special week of broadcasts from Brooklyn, Mamdani opened up about a relationship that has drawn considerable attention since Trump and the democratic socialist mayor began meeting following Mamdani’s election last year.
​
“The president and I have many disagreements, but one thing we do agree on is this city and how much we love this city,” Mamdani told Kimmel, a frequent and outspoken critic of Trump.
​
Mamdani said he decided from his first meeting with Trump that their conversations should focus less on their political differences and more on areas in which cooperation between Washington and City Hall could produce tangible results for New Yorkers.
​
“And so from that first meeting in November of last year, I was just thinking of how can we make this meeting not about us, but about New Yorkers. How can we spend that time talking about the things that could make life in this city a little bit easier. That’s what it’s been, whether we met at the White House or at Gracie Mansion,” the mayor said.
​
The unusual relationship has evolved substantially since last year’s mayoral campaign, when Trump repeatedly attacked Mamdani and Mamdani sharply criticized the president and his policies.
​
Since Mamdani took office, however, the two have maintained direct communication, including telephone calls, text messages and multiple face-to-face meetings.
​
Mamdani revealed to Kimmel that he and Trump text “from time to time,” with much of their recent communication centering on Sunnyside Yard and other issues involving New York City.
​
The Queens project has emerged as perhaps the clearest explanation for why the two politicians have maintained an open line despite their ideological differences.
​
Mamdani wants to construct a massive platform over Sunnyside Yard, the sprawling active rail facility in Queens, and develop an entirely new neighborhood containing approximately 12,000 homes.
​
The project would also create an estimated 30,000 jobs, according to City Hall, but it cannot proceed without substantial federal involvement. Building above the rail yard would require complicated federal approvals and potentially billions of dollars in federal assistance.
​
Trump has shown particular interest in the proposal, drawing on his decades of experience in New York real estate and his familiarity with Sunnyside.
​
During Trump’s visit to Gracie Mansion earlier this month, the president said he had watched developers attempt to figure out Sunnyside Yard for decades.
​
“Well, I can tell you that Sunnyside is a big job. I’ve been watching that for 35 years. Everybody has wanted to do something with Sunnyside Yard. We met at the White House a couple of times. But we met at the White House. The mayor brought that up, the possibility of doing Sunnyside Yard,” Trump said.
​
“It’s a very — I would say that was a very federal-oriented job. You’re going to need a lot of federal approvals and probably some federal money to do it. But it’s always been a great location. I owned a building in Sunnyside. It was a great building. I know it very well. So, when he mentioned Sunnyside Yard, they’ve been talking about developing that for 50 years. So maybe they have a shot at doing it.”
​
The September 21 Gracie Mansion meeting moved the proposal another step forward, with Mamdani and Trump agreeing that technical discussions would begin between City Hall’s housing and operations officials and their counterparts in the White House.
​
No federal funding commitment has been made, and the massive project remains a long way from construction.
​
Mamdani said Monday night that his communications with Trump continue to focus on how the federal and city governments can “deliver for the city.”
​
Kimmel, intrigued by the idea that Mamdani and Trump actually exchange text messages, asked whether Trump’s private texts resemble his social-media posts, which frequently feature capital letters and emphatic punctuation.
​
Mamdani said Trump’s private messages are far more conventional, describing their punctuation and capitalization as normal.
​
Kimmel then suggested that he and Mamdani take a selfie together and send it to Trump.
​
Mamdani declined.
​
“Jimmy, I love you, but I love housing more,” Mamdani quipped.
​
Mamdani also addressed one of the more widely circulated moments from Trump’s recent Gracie Mansion visit: video showing the mayor standing alongside the president and blinking slowly as Trump spoke to reporters.
​
The mayor joked that viewers may have interpreted his expression as a reaction to Trump, but said his mind was actually on the Sunnyside Yard project.
​
The Gracie Mansion meeting was itself unusual. Trump became the first sitting president in decades to visit the mayoral residence, and the two spent roughly an hour privately discussing housing, immigration and other city issues before appearing together before reporters.
​
Mamdani also raised the status of Haitian New Yorkers who face the loss of Temporary Protected Status, an issue on which the mayor has pressed Trump directly.
​
The relationship between the two men has been especially striking because of the rhetoric that preceded it.
​
During the 2025 campaign, Trump repeatedly denounced Mamdani’s democratic socialist politics and warned about the direction New York would take under his leadership.
​
Mamdani, meanwhile, campaigned as a sharp critic of Trump and continues to oppose major elements of the president’s immigration and domestic agenda.
​
Their tone changed dramatically following Mamdani’s election.
​
After meeting with Mamdani, Trump publicly praised him and expressed hope that he would succeed as mayor, while Mamdani emphasized that his willingness to work with the president did not mean abandoning their disagreements.
​
That unexpected détente has continued through multiple meetings.
​
At Gracie Mansion last week, Trump again offered strikingly warm words about the mayor.
​
“I certainly hope he will be a great mayor. You have to understand I want what’s good for New York. I want what’s good for the country. So if I had a choice of having him be a bad mayor or horrible mayor, I don’t want that. I want him to be a great mayor, and he certainly got potential, a great potential,” Trump said.
​
Monday’s interview took place at the Brooklyn Academy of Music’s Howard Gilman Opera House, where “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” is spending the week broadcasting from New York rather than its regular Hollywood studio.
​
When Kimmel jokingly asked whether Mamdani might consider becoming mayor of Los Angeles once his time running New York was finished, Mamdani turned him down, making clear where his loyalties remained.
​
“It’s New York City,” Mamdani said.
​
{Matzav.com}

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says a foreign power was involved in the suspected terror incident near RAF Fairford, the British airbase used by American bombers during the war with Iran, calling what unfolded over the weekend “a very serious situation” even as five British suspects have been released on bail and investigators continue trying to determine exactly what they were planning. Reuters
​
British counterterrorism police arrested the five men early Sunday near RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire after a local farmer spotted three suspicious white vans and a group of masked men close to the strategically important military installation.
​
The suspects, all British nationals in their early 20s from London, were initially detained on suspicion of explosives offenses and were subsequently arrested on suspicion of preparing an act of terrorism.
​
Rubio said Monday night that American officials believe a foreign player was involved, although he stopped short of publicly identifying the country or disclosing the intelligence behind his assertion.
​
“What happened, what almost happened, what could have happened ⁠in the UK over the weekend is a very serious situation. It’s one that clearly involves the hands of a foreign actor. I won’t get into great detail about that yet,” Rubio told Fox News.
​
British authorities have been more cautious, saying investigators are examining numerous possibilities, including whether the men were acting as proxies for a foreign government, either knowingly or unknowingly. Iran and Russia are among the potential foreign-state angles being examined, alongside possible involvement by non-state extremist groups. euronews
​
Iran has emerged as a particular focus because of RAF Fairford’s role in American military operations against Tehran.
​
The sprawling base, roughly 100 miles west of London, has an unusually long and heavily reinforced runway capable of handling American B-1 and B-52 strategic bombers. U.S. aircraft operating from Fairford have participated in missions connected to the war with Iran.
​
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps specifically referenced RAF Fairford in July, warning Britain that “any base used for aggression against Iranian territory constitutes a legitimate target for our forces.” The Guardian
​
President Donald Trump said Monday that the incident “might be” connected to Iran, while stressing that he was not prepared to publicly confirm such a link.
​
Trump also expressed surprise that British authorities had released the five suspects on bail.
​
“I wouldn’t have done that,” he said.
​
The decision to release the men does not mean they have been cleared. British counterterrorism chief Laurence Taylor said they remain subject to stringent bail conditions and “absolutely remain under investigation.”
​
Police are continuing to examine whether any of the suspected offenses were carried out by “proxies or individuals, either knowingly or unknowingly, working on behalf of a foreign state.”
​
Iran’s embassy in London has categorically rejected any suggestion that Tehran was involved, calling the allegations “unfounded and malicious speculations.”
​
One potentially significant development is that investigators reportedly determined that the materials discovered in the three vans did not constitute viable explosives.
​
A source familiar with the investigation said the vehicles did not contain functioning explosive devices, despite the massive emergency response initially triggered by their discovery. British media similarly reported that no viable explosives were found. Reuters
​
That finding leaves major questions about what the men intended to do and whether the incident represented an operational terror plot, preparations for some other hostile act, or something else entirely.
​
The arrests appear to have begun with an alert from an ordinary resident rather than an intelligence operation.
​
A local farmer said she returned home at approximately 1 a.m. Sunday and encountered three large white vans parked suspiciously near the base. One reportedly carried the name of a legitimate fuel company but displayed an incorrect telephone number.
​
The farmer said she saw a group of men wearing hoods or masks who ran when they noticed her.
​
She called police, triggering a huge armed response.
​
Counterterrorism officers descended on the area, army bomb-disposal specialists were deployed, and remotely controlled robots were used to examine the vans.
​
Residents of 85 nearby homes in the village of Whelford were evacuated as authorities established a roughly 400-meter security cordon around the vehicles.
​
The suspects were arrested approximately 25 minutes after the farmer’s emergency call.
​
The fuel company whose name appeared on at least one of the vans denied any connection to the vehicles.
​
“We are extremely concerned that our company’s name has been used without our knowledge or permission,” the company said.
​
It said it was cooperating fully with investigators.
​
The circumstances have also produced conflicting accounts about whether authorities knew of a threat before the farmer made her call.
​
Trump said the suspects had been “under view” for some time and praised cooperation between American and British authorities.
​
“It was fantastic. Working with Britain, it was an amazing job,” Trump said.
​
British reporting, however, indicates that the police operation was not intelligence-led, suggesting the five men were not under direct surveillance before the farmer called authorities. The Guardian
​
At the same time, residents reported a noticeable increase in security around RAF Fairford in the days before the incident.
​
Heavy vehicles had reportedly been positioned near some entrances, police patrols were more visible than usual, and one resident driving past the installation Saturday night said American security personnel ordered the driver to stop and place their hands outside the vehicle.
​
That heightened posture has fueled questions about whether security officials possessed broader intelligence indicating that the base itself faced an increased threat, even if they were unaware of the five men or their vehicles.
​
British Defence Secretary Wes Streeting praised the farmer for alerting authorities, saying she “did exactly the right thing,” while cautioning that she possessed only “a partial view” of the wider security operation.
​
The British government treated the episode seriously enough to convene an emergency COBRA meeting as investigators worked to determine whether the incident was connected to a hostile foreign government.
​
Security was also tightened at American military installations elsewhere in Britain.
​
The Fairford investigation comes amid growing British concern over foreign governments using intermediaries to conduct hostile operations on British soil.
​
British intelligence officials have repeatedly warned about activity linked to both Iran and Russia, including allegations that foreign governments are increasingly recruiting criminals or other proxies to carry out surveillance, sabotage, arson and other operations while providing their sponsors with a degree of plausible deniability.
​
British officials said earlier this year that national-security investigations involving hostile-state activity had increased by approximately 50% during a six-month period ending in December 2025.
​
Iran has been of particular concern to British security agencies, which have accused Tehran of involvement in numerous plots against individuals and organizations in Britain.
​
The tensions escalated further following the outbreak of the U.S.-Iran war in February.
​
Britain initially declined to allow its territory to be used for American attacks on Iran, but later permitted U.S. forces to use British bases for what London described as defensive operations against Iranian missiles and launch sites following Iranian attacks on British interests and allies in the Gulf.
​
American B-1 and B-52 bombers subsequently operated from RAF Fairford during the conflict.
​
Iran has repeatedly denied orchestrating attacks or terror plots in Britain and again rejected any connection to the Fairford incident.
​
The episode occurred with Britain already maintaining its terrorism threat level at “severe,” the second-highest designation, meaning authorities consider an attack highly likely.
​
A large police cordon remained around RAF Fairford Tuesday morning, although residents evacuated from nearby homes were being permitted to return as the examination of the scene continued.

Russia is offering Americans and other foreigners signing bonuses of roughly $26,000 and monthly pay of about $2,000 to enlist in its military and fight in Ukraine, part of an expanding international recruitment operation aimed at replenishing Moscow’s forces after years of heavy battlefield losses.
​
Ukrainian officials say they have identified at least 18 Americans who have enlisted with the Russian military, while the overall number of foreign nationals known to have joined Russian forces has climbed to more than 28,000 people from over 130 countries. Officials believe the actual total is substantially higher.
​
The effort stretches far beyond the United States. Russia has recruited fighters from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and elsewhere, using a combination of lucrative financial offers, promises of Russian citizenship and, in some documented cases, misleading offers of civilian employment.
​
A major Amnesty International investigation released earlier this month found that foreign recruits have sometimes been promised work in fields such as construction, security, logistics and information technology, only to discover after arriving in Russia that they were expected to sign military contracts and deploy to Ukraine. Amnesty said some of the practices amount to human trafficking.
​
For Americans willing to enlist voluntarily, the financial incentive can be substantial. The reported $26,000 signing payment is accompanied by approximately $2,000 in monthly wages, an especially significant sum for recruits coming from poorer countries.
​
Russia’s need for manpower has intensified as the war grinds through its fifth year. Ukrainian officials claim Russia is suffering between 30,000 and 40,000 casualties each month, although battlefield casualty figures from either side cannot be independently confirmed.
​
Vitaliy Matvienko, who heads a Ukrainian government program aimed at persuading Russian soldiers to surrender, said foreign recruitment has developed into a lucrative international business.
​
“It has become an entire industry and is very profitable,” Matvienko told the Post.
​
According to Matvienko, Moscow can send foreigners into dangerous combat roles without producing the same domestic political repercussions that accompany the deaths of large numbers of Russian citizens.
​
Families of foreign recruits who are killed may also have difficulty collecting the compensation promised under their contracts, he said.
​
The recruitment apparatus increasingly operates online. Recruiters and intermediaries reportedly use Facebook, TikTok, Telegram and other platforms to identify potential recruits, with particular attention paid to people facing financial hardship, personal difficulties or those attracted to Russia for ideological reasons.
​
Some recruiters can reportedly receive as much as $24,000 for successfully bringing in a foreign fighter, in addition to collecting a portion of the recruit’s military pay.
​
Ukrainian authorities said earlier this year that they had positively identified 28,391 foreign nationals from 136 countries who had joined Russian forces. That count was based on individuals for whom Ukrainian authorities said they possessed identifying information and did not include regular North Korean troops deployed in support of Russia.
​
Ukrainian officials estimate that the real foreign-fighter total could be another 25% to 30% higher.
​
More than 5,000 of the identified foreign fighters were known to have died, according to Ukrainian figures released earlier this year. Another 3,080 reportedly remained in Russian service even after the terms of their contracts had expired.
​
One of the Americans drawn into Russia’s military was Seth William Baker, a 23-year-old from Gilbert, Arizona, who previously served in the U.S. Marine Corps.
​
Marine Corps records showed that Baker enlisted in 2019, served as a bulk fuel specialist and reached the rank of lance corporal. He was assigned to the 4th Marine Logistics Group and received the National Defense Service Medal.
​
Baker later said that he had left the Marines after refusing the COVID-19 vaccine when vaccination was mandatory for U.S. service members.
​
After leaving the military, Baker eventually traveled to Russia and joined its armed forces. Video subsequently emerged showing him in a Russian military setting discussing why he had chosen to fight.
​
“There’s all this talk about freedom in America, but not for some of us, I suppose,” Baker said.
​
Baker was ultimately killed while serving with Russian forces, according to Ukrainian officials tracking Americans who joined Moscow’s military.
​
Matvienko said Baker represented the type of recruit Russian operatives frequently seek: someone with military experience who had become alienated from institutions in his home country and was struggling to determine his next step.
​
Baker had left the Marines and later failed to gain admission to a police academy, according to the account provided by Ukrainian officials.
​
Another American who joined Moscow’s forces was Wilmer Puello-Mota, a onetime Massachusetts city councilor and U.S. military veteran.
​
Puello-Mota served in the Air Force and Massachusetts Air National Guard and had been deployed to Afghanistan. He eventually reached the rank of technical sergeant.
​
His circumstances were considerably different from Baker’s. Puello-Mota fled the United States in January 2024 shortly before he was scheduled to plead guilty in Rhode Island to charges involving child pornography and obstruction of justice.
​
He subsequently surfaced in Russia and joined Russian forces, later appearing in Russian military propaganda and reportedly operating drones in Ukraine.
​
Perhaps the most extraordinary American case involved Michael Gloss, the 21-year-old son of Juliane Gallina, a senior CIA official who served as the agency’s deputy director for digital innovation, and Larry Gloss, a U.S. Navy veteran.
​
Gloss traveled extensively before arriving in Russia in 2023 and eventually signed a contract with the Russian Defense Ministry. He was assigned to a Russian airborne unit and deployed to the front.
​
His family has said that he had struggled with mental-health issues before disappearing from regular contact with them.
​
Gloss was killed in Ukraine’s Donetsk region in April 2024 while serving with Russian forces. His father later said that his son suffered catastrophic blood loss while attempting to assist an injured Russian soldier.
​
The episode took another remarkable turn in 2025 when Russian President Vladimir Putin posthumously awarded Gloss Russia’s Order of Courage.
​
Putin handed the medal to President Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff during a visit to Moscow, asking that it be delivered to Gloss’ parents. Witkoff subsequently presented the decoration to Gallina and her husband.
​
Russian state media and propaganda outlets have given particular attention to Americans and other Westerners who join Moscow’s forces, portraying their enlistment as evidence that Western citizens sympathize with Russia’s position in the war.
​
Ukrainian officials say that propaganda value is one reason American recruits receive attention disproportionate to their relatively small numbers.
​
The treatment foreign soldiers receive after enlisting can be markedly different from the image presented during recruitment.
​
Foreign fighters have reported being subjected to physical abuse, racial mistreatment and threats from Russian personnel. Some have described being sent into extremely dangerous infantry attacks with limited preparation.
​
Other recruits have said they were forced to continue fighting despite injuries or were prevented from leaving after deciding they no longer wanted to serve.
​
Foreign troops have also reportedly been pressured to contribute portions of their military salaries toward unit expenses, including drones, vehicles, fuel and other battlefield supplies. According to accounts collected by Ukrainian officials and human-rights investigators, those who resisted demands from commanders sometimes faced violence or threats.
​
A Russian decree issued after the invasion also complicates attempts by soldiers to simply complete their contracts and leave. Military service agreements can effectively remain in force while Russia’s mobilization period continues, leaving some foreign recruits unable to depart when they expected.
​
The recruiting operation has increasingly focused on economically vulnerable populations. Foreigners have been offered money, residency papers and expedited Russian citizenship, while some have been approached through intermediaries promising jobs unrelated to military service.
​
Amnesty International documented cases involving recruits from Brazil, Colombia, Sri Lanka and South Africa who said they were misled about what awaited them in Russia.
​
Ukrainian intelligence separately disclosed this month that Russian military structures were arranging immigration paperwork for at least 27 Yemeni nationals so they could be brought legally into Russia and then signed to military contracts.
​
Russia has also recruited citizens of countries including Kenya, Ghana, Nepal, Somalia, India and Cuba.
​
The financial incentives come as Moscow continues trying to avoid the domestic upheaval that could accompany another broad compulsory mobilization. Ukrainian intelligence said this summer that Russia was falling behind its 2026 contract-recruitment goals and had begun relaxing medical and other eligibility requirements to enlarge the available pool of soldiers.
​
Russia’s military contracts remain attractive enough to draw recruits from thousands of miles away, including a small but striking contingent from the United States — Americans being offered tens of thousands of dollars up front to put on a Russian uniform and enter one of the world’s deadliest battlefields.

Passengers aboard an El Al flight from Tel Aviv to Miami faced an extraordinary journey Tuesday after their plane developed an unexpected technical malfunction several hours into the transatlantic flight, forcing the aircraft to reverse course and head all the way back to Israel.
​
Flight LY017 had departed Ben Gurion Airport for Miami before the problem was discovered while the aircraft was already well into its journey. Rather than continuing across the Atlantic, the crew made the decision to turn around and return to Ben Gurion Airport.
​
The reversal meant that, assuming the aircraft returned directly to Tel Aviv without making an intermediate landing, passengers would spend more than 10 consecutive hours aboard the plane — only to end up back at the airport from which they had departed.
​
Flight information indicated that LY017 was being operated by a Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner, the long-haul aircraft El Al commonly uses on the Tel Aviv-Miami route.
​
Reports indicated that the flight had already spent approximately four-and-a-half hours in the air when the decision was made to abandon the trip to Miami. The flight itself had also departed later than originally scheduled.
​
El Al did not publicly disclose the precise nature of the technical problem, describing it only as an unexpected malfunction. There was no indication that passengers or crew members were in immediate danger.
​
The airline said that once the passengers arrived back in Israel, they would be allowed to choose whether to continue their journey on another flight or cancel their travel plans and receive their money back.
​
“We apologize to passengers for the inconvenience and emphasize that El Al places the safety and security of its passengers and crew at the top of its priorities,” the airline said.
​
The disruption came just one day after another Israeli carrier experienced an in-flight technical problem. An Israir charter flight was forced to return to Ben Gurion Airport after a malfunction was discovered shortly after departure.
​
In that incident, the aircraft had been airborne for only about 40 minutes before turning around and returning safely to Israel.

A private aircraft regularly used by Saddam Haftar, the powerful son and deputy of eastern Libyan military commander Khalifa Haftar, landed in Abu Dhabi within minutes of Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu’s arrival this week, fueling reports that the two men secretly met as Haftar seeks international backing for his political ambitions.
​
The alleged meeting has not been confirmed by Israel, Libya or the United Arab Emirates. The report originated with the Italian newspaper Il Foglio, while flight-tracking data independently drew attention to the unusual concentration of government and government-linked aircraft arriving in Abu Dhabi around Netanyahu’s visit.
​
Netanyahu traveled to the UAE for talks with Emirati President Mohammed bin Zayed. Iran was reportedly a central subject of their discussions, while the two leaders also addressed regional security and bilateral relations.
​
The visit also came amid controversy over a Haaretz report alleging that Emirati intelligence had warned Israel ahead of the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack and that Netanyahu failed to act on the information. Netanyahu has vehemently denied the allegation.
​
Separate attention, however, quickly focused on the aircraft arriving at Abu Dhabi’s Al Bateen airport around the time of Netanyahu’s arrival.
​
Among them was an Airbus A319 bearing registration P4-KH5I9 that flew in from Benghazi. The aircraft has been regularly associated with Saddam Haftar and reportedly touched down approximately 15 to 20 minutes after Netanyahu’s aircraft.
​
Other aircraft linked to Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE were also tracked arriving in Abu Dhabi around the same period, prompting speculation about whether Netanyahu’s visit involved additional undisclosed contacts.
​
Mohamed Buisier, a former political adviser to Khalifa Haftar, claimed that the timing of the Libyan aircraft’s arrival was no coincidence and alleged that Saddam Haftar met Netanyahu in an effort to secure Israeli political support for his ambitions to become Libya’s president.
​
No official evidence has emerged confirming that Haftar himself was aboard the aircraft or establishing that a face-to-face meeting with Netanyahu actually took place.
​
Such a meeting, however, would fit into a longer history of reported contacts between the Haftar family and Israel.
​
In 2021, an aircraft associated with Saddam Haftar was tracked to Ben Gurion Airport, where he was reportedly involved in contacts with Mossad representatives. Later that year, reports emerged that the Haftar family had retained an Israeli lobbying and communications firm, with the arrangement reportedly facilitated through the UAE.
​
Saddam Haftar has increasingly emerged as one of the most powerful figures in eastern Libya and is widely viewed as the political and military heir to his father, Khalifa Haftar, whose forces control much of the eastern portion of the deeply divided country.
​
The younger Haftar has simultaneously been working to strengthen his relationships in Washington. Earlier this year, Ballard Partners signed a $2 million agreement to provide government-relations and strategic advisory services to the Libyan Arab Armed Forces led by the Haftar family.
​
The agreement covers both Khalifa and Saddam Haftar and gives their forces access to one of Washington’s most influential lobbying operations. Ballard Partners has extensive ties to figures in President Donald Trump’s administration.
​
Il Foglio reported that Saddam Haftar is also pursuing high-level meetings with American officials as part of his effort to establish himself internationally as a central player in Libya’s future. The newspaper reported that he is seeking a meeting with Vice President JD Vance after previously holding talks in the United States with Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
​
The diplomatic push comes at a sensitive moment for Haftar following serious allegations emerging from western Libya.
​
Libyan Prime Minister Abdulhamid Dabaiba has reportedly accused Saddam Haftar of directing a covert cell responsible for attacks against oil infrastructure, military positions and political figures in western Libya. Il Foglio reported that Dabaiba made the accusations during a closed meeting with prominent figures in Misrata earlier this month.
​
The allegations include claims that Spanish contractors and Libyan operatives were involved in attacks around Zawiya and Tripoli. Individuals allegedly linked to the cell have reportedly been arrested, while evidence said to have been recovered from a computer is claimed to connect the operation to Haftar.
​
Those allegations remain contested, and some individuals and organizations named in reporting surrounding the affair have denied involvement.
​
Against that backdrop, Haftar has reportedly been seeking to broaden his relationships with influential Western officials, including U.S. Ambassador to Greece Kimberly Guilfoyle.
​
One potential intermediary is Refaat al-Abbar, a Haftar associate who has wielded influence within Libya’s National Oil Corporation and is involved in an ongoing struggle over control and influence surrounding Waha Oil and Gas.
​
That battle has unfolded as Mohamed Dabaiba, the son of the Tripoli-based prime minister, has increased his influence over the oil company, while western Libyan energy facilities have faced a series of sabotage incidents.
​
The Haftar camp is reportedly interested in using its international relationships to regain influence over Waha and other strategically important parts of Libya’s enormous energy industry.
​
At the same time, Haftar has been navigating Washington’s broader efforts to bridge Libya’s longstanding east-west divide. Massad Boulos, President Trump’s senior adviser for Africa and a relative by marriage, has been deeply involved in American efforts aimed at bringing Libya’s rival power centers together.
​
For now, however, the most intriguing question surrounding Netanyahu’s Abu Dhabi visit remains unanswered: whether Saddam Haftar was aboard the aircraft that arrived from Benghazi and, if so, whether his arrival minutes after the Israeli prime minister was merely a coincidence.

In a dramatic eleventh-hour development in the decades-long Ponevezh Yeshiva dispute, Israel’s Supreme Court on Tuesday temporarily halted the impending eviction of the faction led by Rav Shmuel Markowitz from the famed yeshiva campus in Bnei Brak, allowing approximately 1,300 talmidim to remain on the hill through Simchas Torah.

Justice Ofer Grosskopf issued the stay Tuesday afternoon in response to an appeal filed by the Masores HaTorah nonprofit organization and Rav Markowitz, freezing implementation of the lower-court ruling that had ordered the group to vacate the premises.

The practical effect is that no eviction will take place during Chol Hamoed, as had been planned. The Supreme Court’s order will remain in effect pending further consideration of the appeal.

The opposing faction has been directed to submit its response to the appeal by October 8.

News of the decision spread rapidly through the yeshiva Tuesday afternoon and was greeted with tremendous emotion by the talmidim, who had spent recent days preparing for the possibility that they would be forced from the historic campus in the middle of Sukkos.

The immediate consequence of the ruling is that Rav Markowitz and his talmidim will be able to conduct the yeshiva’s Simchas Torah celebrations in the bais medrash on the Ponevezh hill.

For weeks, the possibility of an eviction had hung over the yeshiva as the legal deadline approached. The talmidim had followed the court proceedings closely, uncertain where the yeshiva would relocate if authorities enforced the order during Chol Hamoed.

The dispute stems from the bitter and extraordinarily protracted conflict over control of Ponevezh Yeshiva, which for decades has divided the institution into two camps occupying the same historic campus.

The faction led by Rav Markowitz is commonly referred to in Israeli chareidi parlance as the mechablim, while the opposing camp is known as the sonim. The labels emerged during the long-running internal battle and are generally used as identifiers rather than in their literal meanings.

The current legal confrontation followed a ruling by retired Judge David Cheshin ordering Rav Markowitz’s faction to leave the yeshiva property. Implementation of that decision was scheduled for the middle of Chol Hamoed Sukkos, raising the prospect of a highly charged forced evacuation of hundreds of bochurim from one of the most famous yeshiva campuses in the world.

The Masores HaTorah organization and Rav Markowitz appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court and asked that enforcement be suspended while the appeal is considered.

Justice Grosskopf’s decision Tuesday granted that immediate request. It does not overturn the underlying ruling or determine which side will ultimately prevail in the property dispute; rather, it preserves the existing situation while the Supreme Court considers the matter.

Inside the yeshiva, talmidim attributed the development to an extraordinary campaign of tefillah and increased limud haTorah undertaken in recent months as the eviction date drew closer.

During Elul, the bochurim collectively accepted additional commitments in continuous Torah learning and taanis dibbur, while also undertaking to learn additional masechtos outside the yeshiva’s regular sedorim.

The concern reached an emotional peak during the Yomim Noraim.

On Rosh Hashanah, immediately before tekias shofar, Rav Michoel Kaufman, one of the yeshiva’s roshei yeshiva, approached the amud and began reciting chapters of Tehillim.

Thousands of current and former talmidim joined the tefillos before the open Aron Kodesh, pleading that the yeshiva be permitted to continue operating on the Ponevezh hill.

A similarly unusual scene unfolded shortly before Neilah on Yom Kippur.

Rav Shmuel Markowitz went to the Aron Kodesh and addressed the bnei hayeshiva, asking them to daven over what he described through the words of “galinu mei’artzeinu” — the sense that they were facing the very real possibility of being displaced from their longtime home.

Despite the looming eviction order, Rav Markowitz reportedly instructed the yeshiva’s administrators after the Yomim Noraim to proceed normally with all preparations and orders for Simchas Torah on the hill.

When administrators questioned the decision given the court-ordered evacuation expected during Chol Hamoed, Rav Markowitz reportedly told them that after the elevated tefillos of the Yomim Noraim, all that remained was to wait for a miracle.

Tuesday afternoon’s court order immediately transformed the atmosphere in the yeshiva.

Preparations are now moving ahead for Simchas Torah in the bais medrash, with hundreds of bochurim expected to participate in the traditional hakafos and festivities on the campus.

A special seudas hodaah is also expected to be held following Yom Tov in gratitude for the reprieve.

The Association of Ponevezh Yeshiva Students welcomed the Supreme Court intervention while stressing that the legal battle itself remains unresolved.

“We welcome the Supreme Court’s decision to halt the reckless and unprecedented eviction of approximately 1,300 yeshiva students, including minors, who would have found themselves on the street without being given the minimum amount of time to find an alternative location. We hope that as the proceedings continue, the court will take into consideration a community numbering thousands of households and overturn the outrageous ruling, in accordance with previous rulings of this court regarding other sectors of Israeli society,” the organization said.

For now, the stay means that the eviction feared throughout Elul and the Yomim Noraim will not take place during Sukkos, and the sounds of Simchas Torah will once again fill the Ponevezh bais medrash on the hill.

Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu warned Tuesday that Israel has indications its enemies may attempt an attack in the run-up to next month’s Knesset elections, prompting Opposition Leader Yair Lapid to demand an urgent security briefing and leading Netanyahu to schedule a late-night meeting with him.
​
The unusual warning came during Netanyahu’s visit to the Tel Nof Air Force Base, just weeks before Israelis are scheduled to go to the polls on October 27. Netanyahu did not identify which enemy or enemies Israel believes may be preparing an attack, nor did he publicly disclose the intelligence underlying his warning.
​
“We have indications that, ahead of the elections, our enemies will try to attack us,” Netanyahu said. “So from here, from the Air Force base, from the long arm of the State of Israel, I send you a message: Don’t mess with us, not now and not ever. Our long arm will reach you anywhere and at any time.”
​
The statement immediately drew demands from opposition leaders for more information about the nature and seriousness of the threat.
​
Lapid contacted the Prime Minister’s Office and requested an urgent security briefing, seeking additional information about the intelligence behind Netanyahu’s public warning and the steps being taken to protect the election process.
​
“Lapid is seeking to understand whether the threats are real, and if so, how the Prime Minister is preparing this time to ensure that the elections are held without disruption,” a statement on his behalf said.
​
Lapid also sought briefings involving senior security and election officials, arguing that a publicly disclosed threat capable of affecting the elections required those responsible for safeguarding the democratic process to be fully informed.
​
Netanyahu was scheduled to convene a security assessment with senior defense officials Tuesday evening, followed by a meeting with Lapid at 11:30 p.m.
​
The Yashar party, headed by Gadi Eisenkot, also demanded that Lapid be given the relevant intelligence, while raising questions about Netanyahu’s decision to announce the threat publicly in the midst of an election campaign.
​
“If Netanyahu’s statements regarding the security threats are accurate, this requires the immediate briefing of opposition leader Yair Lapid, in order to ensure that this is indeed a genuine threat and not a political move intended to affect the election campaign,” the party stated.
​
“It is absolutely forbidden to mix Israel’s security with the election campaign – even in appearance,” the party added.
​
The Prime Minister’s Office rejected the suggestion that Lapid was being denied security information, noting that Netanyahu routinely provides the opposition leader with classified security briefings as required under Israeli law. The two most recently met for such an update on September 14, approximately two weeks ago.
​
As the controversy over Tuesday’s warning intensified, the Prime Minister’s Office announced that another update would be provided.
​
“The Prime Minister instructed his military secretary to brief the opposition leader today on the latest developments.”
​
The decision was subsequently made for Netanyahu himself to meet Lapid later Tuesday night following the prime minister’s security consultation.
​
Netanyahu’s warning came amid continued Israeli military activity on multiple fronts and an ongoing confrontation with Iran and its regional allies. Speaking from Tel Nof, he stressed that the Israeli Air Force remained engaged across the region.
​
“I am here at the Air Force base with our heroic pilots and our wonderful ground crews. We are operating constantly on all fronts,” he said.
​
Netanyahu also said Israel was facing international pressure to relinquish gains achieved during the fighting, something he vowed he would resist.
​
“There are tremendous achievements, but there are also tremendous pressures, and the pressures are to withdraw, to give up the great achievements attained through the heroism of our soldiers. I am not allowing that to happen, and I will not allow it to happen.”

​The Breslover community and the broader world of chesed are mourning the petirah of R’ Dovid Yehuda “Duki” Greenwald z”l, one of the early pioneers of chareidi emergency medical services in Eretz Yisroel and a well-known Breslover askan, who was niftar at the age of 57 following years of illness and suffering.
​
R’ Duki was niftar at Hadassah Ein Kerem Hospital in Yerushalayim after a prolonged battle with serious illness.
​
He was born on 4 Elul 5729 to R’ Avigdor Mordechai Greenwald z”l, a distinguished Breslover chossid, and Mrs. Leah Rochel Greenwald. Raised and educated in Breslov institutions, he went on to become a familiar and beloved figure among Breslover chassidim in Eretz Yisroel and around the world.
​
For decades, R’ Duki devoted himself to saving lives and helping others. During the formative years of the chareidi volunteer emergency-response organizations in Eretz Yisroel, he was among those who helped establish and develop the infrastructure that would ultimately become an indispensable part of the community.
​
He was known for responding whenever help was needed, regardless of the hour, and his involvement in emergency medicine was accompanied by a much broader life of chesed. His home was open to guests and people in need, and he regularly became involved when individuals or families required assistance.
​
In recent years, after moving from Ramat Shlomo to Yerushalayim’s Givat Moshe neighborhood, R’ Duki established a shul in his own home so that despite his declining health, he could continue being meticulous about tefillah b’tzibbur.
​
His physical condition became increasingly difficult in his later years, including serious problems affecting his legs, but those close to him recalled that he refused to surrender the characteristic simchas hachaim for which he was known.
​
R’ Duki also maintained an especially deep connection to the annual Breslover pilgrimage in Uman for Rosh Hashanah. For many years, he made the journey with tremendous dedication, and a well-known minyan for Krias HaTorah there became associated with him. Following davening, he would host a large kiddush for the many participants.
​
Several years ago, R’ Duki endured a devastating personal loss with the petirah of his wife, Mrs. China Rochel Greenwald a”h, daughter of noted Breslover mashpia R’ Chaim Menachem Kramer. She was just 47 when she was niftar following a difficult illness, leaving behind seven yesomim.
​
Following her petirah, R’ Duki devoted himself to raising their children. Approximately a year ago, he and his son had the zechus of dedicating a beautiful Sefer Torah to the central Breslov bais medrash in Ramat Beit Shemesh Daled in her memory.
​
His petirah came just approximately one month before the scheduled wedding of one of his sons, adding another painful dimension to the loss for his family and friends.
​
The levayah was held at Shamgar in Yerushalayim, continuing to the Breslover shul in Meah Shearim before proceeding to Har Hazeisim for kevurah.
​
Yehi zichro boruch.