Feed aggregator

A 33-year-old upstate New York man accused of making chilling antisemitic threats against a Jewish charitable organization in Lakewood, New Jersey, has been arrested on federal charges after allegedly threatening FBI agents who attempted to question him about the calls.

Dylan Daniell, a resident of La Fargeville in Jefferson County, allegedly contacted the Lakewood nonprofit repeatedly in May, expressing a desire to murder Jews, including by placing them in gas chambers. Months later, when federal investigators arrived at his residence to question him, prosecutors say he responded with threatening statements and subsequently sent an intimidating message to one of the agents.

Daniell appeared in federal court on October 9 before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mitchell Katz in the Northern District of New York. He was ordered held pending a detention hearing scheduled for October 15.

Federal prosecutors have charged Daniell with threatening federal law enforcement officers with the intent to impede, intimidate or interfere with their official duties. If convicted, he could face a maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison.

According to a criminal complaint filed October 8, the investigation began with a series of disturbing telephone calls received by an unidentified Jewish nonprofit organization in Lakewood on May 17.

During one of the recorded conversations, the caller allegedly declared, “I would like to put all the Jews in a gas chamber and kill them.”

In another call, the individual stated, “I would like to blow up Israel and kill all the Jews.”

The caller also allegedly made a specific reference to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, saying, “I would like to kill Benjamin Netanyahu and all the Jews.”

The threatening remarks prompted an FBI investigation, with agents working to determine the identity of the person responsible for the calls.

According to the FBI affidavit, investigators traced the telephone number used to contact the charity through law enforcement records and information associated with a Cash App account, ultimately connecting it to Daniell.

The FBI’s efforts to interview Daniell culminated in a confrontation outside his La Fargeville apartment on October 7, according to the complaint.

Two federal agents initially arrived at the residence but found that Daniell was not home. They subsequently attempted to contact him by telephone.

At approximately 12:30 p.m., Daniell returned to the property in a vehicle and emerged “accompanied by an adult female, a dog and an infant child,” the court documents state.

When the agents approached and identified themselves as FBI personnel, Daniell allegedly responded with an obscene remark and a series of threatening statements.

Among other things, he reportedly declared that the “only good cop is a dead cop,” before warning the agents to “get the f\*\*\* out of here before I pull something out on you.”

The agents departed the property following the confrontation, but prosecutors allege that Daniell’s threatening behavior continued after they left.

Approximately four hours later, one of the investigators received a text message from the same telephone number that had been used to contact the Lakewood charity.

“You ever come to my house again, you will not like it,” the message stated, according to court records. “That’s not a threat. That’s a promise to all you tyrant, pedophile FBI agents.”

The alleged threats against the agents became the basis for the federal criminal charge filed against Daniell the following day.

The Justice Department announced his arraignment on October 9 at the federal courthouse in Syracuse, where Magistrate Judge Katz ordered him detained pending further proceedings.

In addition to a possible 10-year prison sentence, Daniell faces a fine of up to $250,000 and as many as three years of supervised release if convicted. Any sentence would be determined by the court under federal sentencing law.

First Assistant U.S. Attorney John A. Sarcone III issued a forceful warning following the arrest, emphasizing that threats directed at federal investigators would be prosecuted.

“Threatening law enforcement officers is not a joke,” Sarcone stated. “It is not something that we will brush aside, and it will not be tolerated.”

Sarcone further warned that individuals who believe they can intimidate federal officers must recognize that such conduct carries serious legal consequences, pledging aggressive prosecution of those responsible.

Craig L. Tremaroli, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Albany Field Office, also condemned the alleged conduct, describing the initial calls to the Jewish charity as deeply disturbing and the subsequent threats against investigators as an additional serious offense.

Tremaroli said the FBI would continue taking action against individuals who threaten violence, particularly against officers carrying out their responsibilities to protect the public.

The case is being investigated by the FBI with assistance from the New York State Police. Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew J. McCrobie is handling the prosecution.

Although the investigation originated with the antisemitic telephone calls to the Lakewood organization, the criminal complaint presently charges Daniell with threatening federal law enforcement officers. Prosecutors have not announced separate criminal charges arising directly from the calls to the charity.

Daniell remains in federal custody ahead of his October 15 detention hearing. The allegations against him have not been proven in court, and he is presumed innocent unless convicted.

Israeli police arrested a 25-year-old Bnei Brak resident Tuesday evening on suspicion of stealing the personal laptop computer of Bnei Brak Mayor Chanoch Zeibert while the mayor was using a local mikvah earlier this week.

Detectives from the Bnei Brak–Ramat Gan police station apprehended the suspect following an investigation that included reviewing surveillance footage from the location where the theft occurred. The suspect is also being investigated in connection with an alleged break-in involving the mayor’s vehicle.

The incident took place Sunday at the Machnovka-Belz mikvah on Rebbe of Gur Street in Bnei Brak, a facility the mayor regularly visits.

According to the report, Zeibert arrived at the mikvah carrying his personal laptop and entered the building. While the mayor was immersed in the mikvah, the suspect allegedly took advantage of his absence and stole the computer.

Following the discovery of the theft, a complaint was filed with police, who obtained recordings from security cameras installed at the premises. The footage reportedly captured the individual suspected of taking the laptop.

Investigators launched efforts to identify and locate the suspect, using the surveillance recordings and other investigative measures to track him down.

On Tuesday evening, police announced that detectives had located the individual and taken him into custody. The suspect, a 25-year-old resident of Bnei Brak, was brought to the Bnei Brak–Ramat Gan police station for questioning on suspicion of burglary and theft.

According to local reports, the suspect is known in Bnei Brak for alleged previous incidents involving break-ins to vehicles and the theft of money.

Police have not yet announced whether the mayor’s laptop has been recovered or whether additional charges are expected.

{Matzav.com}

A member of the United Nations commission that accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza has acknowledged that the panel did not independently verify a key statistic concerning Palestinian civilian deaths, raising fresh questions about the evidence used to support its highly controversial findings.

Chris Sidoti, an Australian jurist serving on the U.N. Commission of Inquiry on Israel and the Palestinians, made the admission during a public discussion at Caulfield Hebrew Congregation, an Orthodox synagogue in Melbourne, where he faced questions from American military law expert Brian Cox and members of the audience.

The exchange focused on the commission’s conclusion that Israel had committed genocide during its military campaign against Hamas in Gaza, an allegation the Israeli government has repeatedly and emphatically rejected.

Sidoti acknowledged that the commission had relied on a comparatively low evidentiary threshold in reaching its conclusions and stressed that the panel was an investigative body rather than a judicial institution empowered to determine criminal guilt.

He also conceded that the commission had not independently established the accuracy of a widely circulated claim that 83% of Palestinians killed during the fighting were civilians.

The discussion exposed a central disagreement over the legal requirements for establishing genocide, particularly the need to demonstrate that a government or military acted with the specific intention of destroying a protected national, ethnic, racial or religious group.

Sidoti acknowledged that establishing genocidal intent involves “a very, very high test,” which he described as “higher than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.”

Nevertheless, he argued that Israel’s stated objective of eliminating Hamas did not necessarily rule out the possibility that its military campaign could also constitute genocide.

According to Sidoti, “if we accept that the goal of the Israeli authorities in Gaza has been the destruction of Hamas, that does not preclude the possibility of genocide being the strategy by which their goal is going to be attained.”

His argument was that a military operation directed against a terrorist organization could still involve genocidal conduct if the methods employed were intended to destroy a protected population, in whole or in part.

Israel has consistently maintained that its military operations were directed against Hamas following the terrorist organization’s October 7, 2023, massacre and that it did not pursue the destruction of the Palestinian civilian population.

Sidoti explained that the commission had based its conclusions on what it considered “reasonable grounds,” acknowledging that this was “not a high standard.”

“We are not a court,” he told attendees. “We are not even prosecutors. We are an investigative body.”

The distinction is particularly significant because the 1948 Genocide Convention requires proof of a specific intent to destroy a protected group, known in legal terminology as dolus specialis. The existence of civilian casualties, even on a large scale, does not by itself establish that particular intent.

The controversy has been sharpened by comments from Navi Pillay, the commission’s previous chairwoman, who offered a markedly different description of the panel’s investigative procedures.

Pillay, a former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights who was awarded the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize last week, told a German newspaper that the commission “essentially worked like a court” and operated with “all the instruments of the separation of powers.”

She also maintained that “Every fact was verified by us,” an assertion that appeared difficult to reconcile with Sidoti’s acknowledgment that at least one significant statistic had not been independently checked.

Pillay received the Nobel Peace Prize on October 9 in recognition of her decades of work promoting international law and accountability for serious human rights violations. Her selection drew criticism from Israel, which has accused the commission she chaired of anti-Israel bias.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee, however, praised her contributions to international justice, including her work on international criminal tribunals and her efforts to strengthen the rule of law.

Another disagreement raised during the Melbourne event concerned the commission’s interpretation of proceedings before the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

The U.N. panel had previously asserted that the court “put all States on notice of the plausibility of the State of Israel committing genocide.”

Cox challenged that characterization by playing an audio recording of Joan Donoghue, who served as president of the International Court of Justice when it issued provisional measures in the genocide case brought against Israel by South Africa.

In the recording, Donoghue explained that the court had not determined that the allegation of genocide itself was plausible, contrary to how its preliminary decision had frequently been portrayed.

The court’s provisional-measures ruling addressed the plausibility of certain rights claimed under the Genocide Convention and the need to protect those rights while the case proceeded. It did not establish that Israel had committed genocide.

Sidoti nevertheless defended the commission’s description of the ruling.

“Our paragraph is entirely consistent with then-President Donoghue’s comments,” he told the audience.

The debate then turned to the methods the commission used to gather and evaluate evidence.

Sidoti insisted that the investigators did “not come to conclusions unless we ourselves have conducted an investigation.”

An audience member challenged that assertion by raising the commission’s use of a claim that 83% of Palestinians killed in Gaza were civilians.

The commission had cited the figure in connection with its allegation that Israeli forces were deliberately targeting Palestinian civilians. However, the statistic has been disputed, including over the underlying methodology used to distinguish civilians from combatants.

Asked whether the commission had independently confirmed the percentage, Sidoti acknowledged that it had not.

“No. We didn’t, because we don’t have that information,” he replied. “We literally don’t know, nor does the IDF know.”

The exchange was particularly significant because the civilian casualty rate had been presented as part of the evidence supporting the commission’s conclusions about Israel’s conduct during the war.

The Melbourne event, held October 8 before a packed audience at Caulfield Hebrew Congregation, brought together Sidoti and Cox for a public examination of the commission’s findings. Cox, a former professor of international law at Cornell University and a senior fellow at Canada’s Macdonald-Laurier Institute, has been a prominent critic of the legal reasoning underlying the genocide allegations.

Organizers reported that the event’s livestream was disrupted during the first half of the program by what appeared to be a coordinated denial-of-service attack involving hundreds of automated connections. The broadcast was restored for the second half.

The gathering was organized by several groups, including ABC Watch, the Australian Jewish Association, Allies for a Strong Australia and The Hague Initiative for International Cooperation. Organizers said the event had not been widely publicized beforehand because of security concerns, and attendees were screened individually.

Sidoti’s acknowledgment that the commission had not verified the 83% figure does not, by itself, establish that all of the panel’s findings were unsupported. It does, however, raise questions about how the commission distinguished independently established facts from outside estimates when reaching its conclusions.

The commission’s September 2025 report had accused Israel of committing four categories of genocidal acts in Gaza and asserted that Israeli authorities possessed the specific intent required under the Genocide Convention. Israel rejected those conclusions, maintaining that its military campaign was directed against Hamas and that its forces operated under the laws of armed conflict.

The report also accused senior Israeli officials of incitement to genocide, allegations that Israeli authorities have likewise denied.

The competing accounts of the commission’s investigative methods now leave a pointed question about the evidentiary foundation of its conclusions, particularly in light of Pillay’s insistence that every fact had been verified and Sidoti’s admission that the commission lacked the information necessary to independently confirm a prominent civilian casualty statistic.

President Donald Trump pushed forward with the October 2025 hostage agreement between Israel and Hamas despite Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s belief that the terrorist organization had effectively rejected the American proposal, according to new details revealed Tuesday evening by Kan News, marking one year since the agreement that secured the return of the remaining hostages from Gaza.

The report describes how Trump repeatedly treated disputed developments in the negotiations as breakthroughs, including publicly announcing that an agreement had been reached before Israeli negotiators believed the final outstanding issues had been resolved.

According to an individual familiar with the negotiations, the first major disagreement emerged after Hamas submitted its response to Trump’s 20-point peace proposal.

Netanyahu reportedly examined the terrorist organization’s response and concluded that it amounted to a rejection of the American initiative. During private discussions, the prime minister declared that “there is nothing to talk about,” indicating that he believed Hamas had failed to accept the conditions necessary for an agreement.

Trump, however, adopted a dramatically different interpretation. Rather than treating the Hamas response as a refusal, the president publicly characterized it as an acceptance of his plan, effectively keeping the diplomatic process moving despite Netanyahu’s reservations.

That decision proved significant because it prevented the negotiations from collapsing over the initial response and placed additional pressure on the Israeli government to continue pursuing an agreement.

A second revealing incident reportedly occurred during the negotiations in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, in October 2025, when senior representatives of the parties were still working through unresolved details.

Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and adviser, arrived at the talks and arranged for the president to address the participants by telephone.

According to a source who attended the meeting, Trump congratulated those involved, telling them “well done” for reaching an agreement.

The problem, according to the account, was that the negotiations had not yet concluded and the agreement had not been formally signed.

A senior Israeli official attempted to correct the president’s impression, explaining that significant work remained before the parties could finalize the arrangement.

“Wait, we still have work to do,” the official reportedly told Trump.

Nevertheless, Trump proceeded to issue a public announcement declaring that an agreement had been secured, even as negotiators continued working on the remaining details.

The agreement took effect in October 2025, culminating in the return of the remaining 20 living hostages on October 13. The arrangement also provided for the return of the remains of 28 deceased hostages, bringing the total number covered by the agreement to 48, alongside an Israeli military withdrawal to an agreed line in Gaza.

In his announcement on Truth Social, Trump declared that Israel and Hamas had accepted the first phase of his peace initiative, including the release of the hostages and the withdrawal of Israeli forces to designated positions.

The agreement brought an end to the major fighting that had followed the Hamas massacre of October 7, 2023, and paved the way for Trump’s visit to Israel and the international peace summit in Sharm el-Sheikh on October 13, 2025.

A year later, however, significant portions of the broader American peace initiative remain unresolved. Disagreements persist over the disarmament of Hamas, the withdrawal of Israeli troops from additional areas of Gaza, and the establishment of a postwar governing authority.

Israel has insisted that Hamas must surrender its weapons before further Israeli withdrawals can take place, while Hamas has demanded that Israel fulfill additional ceasefire commitments before it agrees to relinquish its military capabilities.

The anniversary was also marked Tuesday by the US State Department, which credited Trump’s diplomatic intervention with securing the return of all the hostages and establishing the foundations for a longer-term arrangement in Gaza.

In its anniversary statement, the department pointed to the establishment of the Board of Peace, the creation of a Palestinian technocratic administration, and plans for Gaza’s reconstruction, while acknowledging that implementation of the broader peace initiative remains a difficult, multiyear undertaking.

{Matzav.com}

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to take up a potentially consequential immigration case involving a Nigerian asylum seeker who was forced to prepare meals for an armed separatist group, raising the question of how much assistance must be provided before an individual can be considered to have given “material support” to terrorists.

The dispute centers on Izuchukwu Ozurumba, a Nigerian citizen whose application for asylum in the United States was denied after immigration authorities determined that his involuntary work cooking food for members of a violent Nigerian organization known as the “Unknown Gunmen” qualified as assistance to a terrorist group.

Although Ozurumba maintained that he had acted under duress, authorities concluded that the food he prepared fell within the federal immigration law’s restrictions on individuals who have provided material support to terrorist organizations.

Ozurumba was deported to Nigeria in 2025. Later that year, however, a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overturned the legal basis for his removal in a 2-1 ruling, concluding that the government had applied the material-support provision too broadly.

The appeals court majority accepted the argument that supplying meals under coercion does not automatically establish the level of assistance necessary to trigger the immigration law’s terrorism-related restrictions.

Judges James Andrew Wynn and Nicole Berner, both appointed by Democratic presidents, warned that the government’s interpretation could produce unreasonable consequences by treating virtually any provision of food as support for terrorism.

“To say that every provision of food is support for terrorism is to collapse the statute into absurdity,” the two judges wrote. “Under the dissent’s theory, a soup kitchen feeding the hungry—some of whom may be unsavory characters—would find itself guilty of aiding terrorism.”

The judges rejected the idea that such an expansive interpretation was required by the statute’s wording.

“That’s not textual fidelity,” they wrote. “That is judicial overreach.”

Judge Julius Richardson, appointed by President Donald Trump, disagreed with his colleagues and argued that their interpretation improperly narrowed the meaning of material support.

In his dissent, Richardson accused the majority of effectively requiring assistance to be “‘significant’ or even ‘essential’ to ‘the commission of terrorism.’”

The federal government subsequently asked the Supreme Court to review the decision, and the justices agreed Tuesday to hear the dispute.

The case, formally titled Blanche v. Ozurumba, could have significant consequences for the federal government’s ability to deny asylum to foreign nationals accused of assisting terrorist organizations, including individuals who claim they were compelled to provide assistance against their will.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, foreign nationals who provide material support to terrorist organizations can be barred from receiving asylum and certain other forms of immigration protection. The law identifies several types of assistance, including transportation, money, weapons, false identification documents and training, but does not establish a precise minimum threshold for what makes support material.

Federal prosecutors have also relied on separate material-support statutes in criminal cases involving individuals accused of assisting terrorist organizations, including people who purchase travel arrangements for prospective recruits or pledge themselves to groups such as ISIS.

Although the Supreme Court case directly concerns immigration law, its resolution could influence broader legal arguments over how assistance to terrorist organizations should be evaluated.

The circumstances surrounding Ozurumba’s involvement with the Unknown Gunmen are central to the dispute.

According to court records, Ozurumba accepted what he believed was legitimate cooking employment at a rural camp in Nigeria. After arriving, he discovered that the facility was controlled by armed separatists and was prevented from leaving.

He testified that he was required to prepare three meals daily, seven days a week, for approximately 15 to 17 leaders of the organization. He remained at the camp for several months, receiving no pay, before eventually escaping.

Fearing further threats from the group, Ozurumba left Nigeria and traveled through Venezuela before entering the United States through the southern border in July 2023. He was detained by Border Patrol authorities and subsequently sought asylum.

An immigration judge denied his application in March 2024, concluding that his cooking duties constituted material support because they provided sustenance to the organization’s leadership. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld that determination in September 2024.

The Fourth Circuit reversed the decision in September 2025, finding that Ozurumba’s forced labor did not sufficiently advance the group’s terrorist activities to qualify as material support under the statute.

Richardson, however, argued that the majority had imposed a limitation Congress never intended. He maintained that assistance need not be directly connected to a particular terrorist attack to benefit an organization engaged in terrorism.

“Material support requires enough support to have some meaningful impact on the terrorist organization’s ability to achieve its goals,” Richardson wrote in his dissent. “For example, though food can constitute material support, selling a hot dog to a terrorist would not count.”

The judge said Ozurumba’s situation was fundamentally different from an ordinary commercial transaction involving an individual who happened to be a terrorist.

“Ozurumba did not run a hot dog stand that the Unknown Gunmen happened to stop by once or twice,” Richardson wrote. “Rather, he acted as a private chef, providing three meals a day for over a dozen leaders of a terrorist organization—for months.”

Richardson reasoned that consistently feeding the leadership of an armed organization helped sustain its operations, regardless of whether the meals themselves were connected to particular acts of violence.

The appeals court majority took the opposite position, concluding that the evidence showed Ozurumba had been a captive worker whose cooking was unrelated to the planning or execution of terrorist activities.

The Supreme Court will now consider whether the federal material-support provision requires assistance to advance actual terrorist conduct or whether substantial help in maintaining an organization’s ordinary operations is enough to trigger the immigration restrictions.

The justices have not yet announced an oral argument date. A ruling is expected by the end of the Court’s current term, potentially in June 2027.

Israel is preparing to impose a nationwide six-month ban on two categories of drones amid intelligence warnings that such aircraft could be used to assassinate senior officials, carry out terrorist attacks, and conduct other hostile activities.

Defense Minister Yisrael Katz is expected to sign an emergency security order on Sunday prohibiting the operation of drones controlled through cellular networks using SIM cards or through fiber-optic cables. The restrictions would apply throughout Israeli-controlled airspace and are intended to address threats that security officials say have become increasingly serious.

The proposed ban follows intelligence assessments identifying specific dangers involving drones, including potential attacks against high-ranking government and security figures. Authorities have also expressed concern about the growing use of unmanned aircraft by terrorist organizations, criminal networks, and other hostile elements operating both inside and outside Israel.

Once Katz signs the order, the restrictions are expected to remain in effect for six months. Officials describe the measure as an interim security precaution designed to reduce immediate vulnerabilities while longer-term technological and regulatory solutions are developed.

The decision comes amid mounting concern over the expanding capabilities of relatively small drones, which can be used for a wide variety of hostile purposes. Security authorities have identified threats ranging from targeted attacks and surveillance operations to weapons smuggling and activities conducted by organized crime groups.

Officials have emphasized that the dangers extend beyond Israel’s borders and active military zones. Drones operated from within Israeli territory have also emerged as a significant security concern, raising fears that hostile individuals could exploit the technology to carry out attacks deep inside the country.

The restrictions will specifically target drones operated through fiber-optic connections and those controlled using cellular communications. Other categories of unmanned aircraft will not be affected by the new order and will remain subject to existing aviation laws and operating requirements.

The proposed regulations include several exceptions intended to preserve essential security and authorized civilian operations. Israeli security agencies, along with individuals or organizations operating on their behalf, will be permitted to continue using the affected drone technologies.

Fiber-optic drones that remain physically tethered to the ground will also be exempt from the prohibition.

Certain cellular-controlled drones may continue operating if they received the necessary authorization from Israel’s Civil Aviation Authority before the new restrictions take effect.

Authorities also intend to establish a special exemptions committee to review individual requests from operators seeking permission to use drones otherwise covered by the ban.

The initiative received the approval of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Katz during Security Cabinet discussions. It follows an examination of the emerging drone threat coordinated by the National Security Council in conjunction with Israel’s security establishment.

The proposed restrictions are part of a broader government effort to tighten oversight of drone technology and prevent its exploitation for terrorist and criminal purposes.

Among the additional measures under consideration are restrictions on importing certain drone systems into Israel and new regulations governing their possession and operation.

Katz is expected to issue the order under powers granted to the defense minister by Israel’s Aviation Law. Before the measure can be finalized, the required process includes consultation with the director of the Civil Aviation Authority and the completion of a public comment period in accordance with Justice Ministry requirements.

{Matzav.com}

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu issued a stern warning Tuesday that Israel is prepared to respond with overwhelming military force if Palestinian Authority security forces turn their weapons against Israeli troops, declaring during a visit to the security seam line in Shomron that the IDF has already developed a comprehensive operational plan for such a confrontation.

Netanyahu delivered the warning while touring the area alongside the defense minister, the head of the National Security Council, and the commander of the IDF Central Command. The visit included a review of security preparations amid intelligence warnings about possible attacks and concerns that terrorist organizations could seek to exploit the period leading up to elections.

“There are security alerts here, that is true. Our enemies are thinking of testing us in these days leading up to the elections. I warn them that we are prepared for every scenario, including what is known as a ‘turning of the guns.'”

Netanyahu said military commanders had already briefed the country’s political leadership on how the IDF would respond if Palestinian security personnel directed their weapons against Israel.

“The IDF presented the Defense Minister and me with a powerful and forceful plan. In such a case, I would not advise our enemies to test us. You will encounter a level of force here that you have never dreamed of.”

During the tour, senior representatives of the IDF, Shin Bet, and Border Police provided Netanyahu with an assessment of the security situation along the seam line, which separates large portions of Yehudah and Shomron from communities inside Israel’s pre-1967 boundaries.

The briefings focused on measures being implemented to protect nearby Israeli communities, as well as ongoing counterterrorism activity in Palestinian population centers. Security officials detailed operations involving the apprehension of suspected terrorists, the seizure of illegal weapons, and efforts to prevent attacks originating in the area.

Standing near the Tulkarm refugee camp, Netanyahu pointed to previous IDF operations there as evidence of Israel’s determination to dismantle terrorist infrastructure.

“Behind me is the former Tulkarm refugee camp,” Netanyahu said. “It was a terrorist stronghold. The IDF entered, cleared it out on our instructions, and did an excellent job, not just here.”

The prime minister also criticized legal efforts concerning the possible return of people displaced from the area, referring specifically to proceedings before Israel’s Supreme Court.

“I heard that someone in the Supreme Court says the residents should be brought back here. These are not residents; they are terrorists,” he said.

Netanyahu insisted that Israeli military control would remain in place and rejected the possibility of an Arab military force operating west of the Jordan River.

“The force that will control this territory and remain here is the Israel Defense Forces. There will be no Arab army west of the Jordan River. There will be the Israel Defense Forces.”

Highlighting the strategic significance of the region, Netanyahu noted that the seam line lies only a short distance from major population centers along Israel’s Mediterranean coast. He presented continued Israeli security control as essential to preventing hostile forces from threatening the country’s densely populated central region.

“You have to understand, we are minutes from Netanya, minutes from the coastline. Israel’s narrow waist will no longer be narrow. We are protecting the area from the Jordan River to the sea. Our country, our control.”

Netanyahu also pointed to the expansion of Israeli communities and agricultural farms in the region, linking those developments to the government’s broader security policy.

“We will continue to safeguard Israel’s security here, along the seam line, everywhere. We are establishing communities here, more than 104, and many farms. We are safeguarding the security of the State of Israel.”

{Matzav.com}

Hundreds of supermarkets across France were thrown into chaos after hackers remotely manipulated refrigeration systems, causing temperatures inside food storage units to soar as high as 122 degrees Fahrenheit and forcing retailers to discard enormous quantities of perishable merchandise. The unprecedented cyberattack, which affected at least five major grocery chains, is believed to have caused tens of millions of euros in damage.

The attack struck stores operated by Carrefour, Monoprix, Les Mousquetaires, E. Leclerc and Coopérative U, disrupting refrigeration equipment essential to keeping meat, dairy products, frozen foods and other temperature-sensitive items safe for consumption. Some locations also experienced fires associated with the incident.

The scale of the disruption prompted an investigation by French authorities and raised serious concerns about the vulnerability of computerized systems used to operate essential commercial infrastructure.

The head of Coopérative U, a network of independently owned supermarkets, publicly acknowledged the incident Monday, revealing that the company’s refrigeration equipment had been compromised overnight.

“I confirm that a cyberattack has been affecting, since last night, the cold production facilities of several stores in our network Coopérative U,” he wrote on X.

He said the company was working urgently with refrigeration professionals to bring the affected equipment back into operation and determine how the intrusion occurred.

“Our teams are fully mobilized, in coordination with refrigeration specialists, to restore the situation as quickly as possible. An investigation will be necessary to shed full light on this attack. Targeting equipment essential to the preservation of fresh products and to the food supply of the French people is of extreme gravity and is unprecedented. It is unacceptable,” he concluded.

France’s Paris prosecutor’s office confirmed that authorities were examining what it described as a “large-scale” cyberattack involving “connected refrigerators in several major food retailers across France.”

Among the companies reporting disruptions was Carrefour, which said approximately 80 of its stores had been affected. Monoprix, which operates roughly 490 locations throughout France, reported that about 5% of its stores had experienced problems.

Les Mousquetaires, the retail group behind Intermarché, reported particularly serious damage, with refrigeration units in approximately 150 stores subjected to temperatures reaching 50 degrees Celsius, equivalent to 122 degrees Fahrenheit, for approximately six hours.

A company representative said all food exposed to the compromised refrigeration conditions had been thrown away, reflecting the potentially serious health risks posed by products that had been stored at unsafe temperatures.

The financial consequences are expected to be substantial. Although the total cost has not yet been officially determined, preliminary estimates placed losses above 10 million euros, or approximately $11.2 million.

Intermarché CEO Thierry Cotillard suggested that the nationwide damage could be considerably higher, describing the incident as having potentially caused “tens of millions of euros nationwide in a single day.”

Investigators are now examining whether vulnerabilities in refrigeration control technology supplied by Danish industrial equipment manufacturer Danfoss allowed the attackers to gain access to the systems.

According to information provided to French authorities, the affected equipment included older refrigeration controllers running software that had not received recent security updates.

Danfoss acknowledged that many of the compromised systems were “legacy” products which “no longer receive software or security updates.”

The manufacturer also said some equipment was operating with “outdated firmware,” despite previous recommendations that customers install available updates or replace aging controllers with newer technology.

The investigation has identified Danfoss AK-SM800 and AK-SC355 refrigeration management systems among the equipment affected. These controllers allow supermarkets to monitor and regulate refrigeration equipment electronically, making them particularly sensitive to unauthorized remote access.

Reports indicate that the attackers manipulated automatic defrosting functions, effectively transforming systems designed to preserve food at low temperatures into equipment capable of generating dangerous heat.

The incident highlights a growing cybersecurity concern involving industrial machinery that was once operated independently but is now connected to networks for remote monitoring, maintenance and automated management.

French Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu directed the country’s National Cybersecurity Agency, ANSSI, to investigate the attack and determine whether additional businesses remain vulnerable.

Investigators have identified a software weakness associated with the Danish supplier and have contacted the company as part of their efforts to establish how the intrusion occurred.

French officials are also communicating with cybersecurity authorities elsewhere in Europe amid concerns that similar refrigeration equipment may be vulnerable in other countries.

The investigation is seeking to identify additional companies using the affected technology so they can be warned and take preventive measures before further damage occurs.

Additional reporting indicates that the number of affected stores may be considerably greater than initially disclosed. Some accounts placed the number of targeted Intermarché and Netto locations at approximately 300, while more than 100 Coopérative U outlets and several E. Leclerc stores were also reported to have experienced disruptions.

In an update Tuesday, Coopérative U CEO Dominique Schelcher said 80 of his company’s approximately 2,000 stores had been affected. He estimated that individual smaller stores could face losses amounting to tens of thousands of euros, while damage at larger hypermarkets could reach 200,000 euros.

The disruption has also coincided with cybersecurity problems elsewhere in Europe’s supermarket industry.

Dutch retailer Ahold Delhaize, which operates the Albert Heijn supermarket chain and has extensive operations in the United States, reported a separate security incident that prompted it to take several computer systems offline.

The company’s problems temporarily interrupted online grocery deliveries, although its physical stores remained open.

In the United States, websites associated with Ahold Delhaize’s Stop & Shop, Giant, Hannaford and Food Lion supermarket brands also displayed notices indicating that their services were temporarily unavailable.

Authorities have not established whether those disruptions were connected to the attack on French refrigeration systems.

European Union Commissioner for Agriculture and Food Christophe Hansen condemned the sabotage, warning that attacks against the infrastructure used to preserve and distribute food represent a serious threat.

“I strongly condemn the cyberattack targeting food products at Intermarche, Cooperative U, Leclerc. Food security requires more attention at all levels. Because the weaponization of food has become a reality,” Hansen wrote Monday on X.

French investigators are continuing to examine the attack’s origins, the extent of the financial damage and the circumstances surrounding the reported fires. As of Tuesday, authorities had not publicly identified those responsible for the intrusion.

House Speaker Mike Johnson is warning that plans to broadcast the execution of convicted Fort Hood terrorist Nidal Hasan could backfire by providing extremist organizations with propaganda material to recruit future terrorists.

Johnson raised the concern Monday as the Trump administration considers whether to proceed with a proposal to livestream Hasan’s execution, scheduled for December 3. Hasan, a former U.S. Army major and psychiatrist, was sentenced to death for murdering 13 people and wounding dozens of others in a 2009 shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas.

War Secretary Pete Hegseth has announced that Hasan will be executed by firing squad and that the military intends to broadcast the event publicly. If the plan proceeds, it would be the first execution in American military history to be livestreamed.

However, President Donald Trump is reportedly reconsidering the broadcasting arrangement. According to a report Monday, Trump privately indicated to an individual outside his administration that the livestream “might not happen.”

Johnson said members of Congress have expressed reservations about making footage of Hasan’s death available to the public, particularly because terrorist organizations could exploit the images for propaganda purposes.

“There are colleagues who have concerns. The concern would be that you would create a video that would be a recruiting tool for future terrorists,” Johnson told CBS News.

The speaker said he had not yet discussed the matter directly with Trump, Vice President JD Vance or Hegseth, but intended to communicate the concerns being raised by lawmakers.

“You know, we’ve got to think through the policy implications of all that. I wouldn’t be watching it if it was aired, but there’s a lot of opinions on that,” he said.

Johnson acknowledged that decisions about military executions fall within the executive branch’s responsibilities, although he believes congressional leaders should make their views known before the administration reaches a final decision.

“I think there’s still some time to talk about that. My role as the leader of the legislative branch is to share my opinion,” Johnson continued.

“That’s outside of my lane, of course. But I need to tell the White House what some of my colleagues think about that, and not everybody is in favor of the idea.”

Hegseth defended the proposed public broadcast last week, arguing that Americans should witness the consequences imposed on individuals responsible for attacks of this magnitude.

The war secretary said the military intended to make Hasan’s execution public “because people need to understand that there’s serious consequences for these types of things.”

Hasan carried out the massacre on November 5, 2009, when he opened fire on soldiers and civilians at Fort Hood, now known as Fort Cavazos, in Killeen, Texas.

The attack killed 13 people and injured more than 30 others, making it one of the deadliest shootings at an American military installation.

During his military trial in 2013, Hasan acknowledged carrying out the shootings. He said his actions were intended to protect Islamic insurgents fighting American forces overseas.

A military jury convicted him of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder before sentencing him to death.

His execution would represent a historic event for the American military justice system. The armed forces have not carried out an execution since 1961, and the last military execution by firing squad took place in 1945.

The proposal has drawn objections from both Republican and Democratic lawmakers, including Republican Reps. Austin Scott, Tom Barrett and Rob Bresnahan, who have urged the administration to reconsider the broadcast. Trump has indicated that he will make the final decision on whether the execution is shown live.

Vice President JD Vance has also expressed reluctance to watch the proceedings, telling reporters last week, “[I]f it’s ultimately livestreamed, I’m not going to be watching it.”

The controversy has extended to the Vatican, where Pope Leo XIV renewed his opposition to capital punishment Saturday, declaring that executions violate the inherent dignity of human life.

“The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person,” the pope wrote on X.

“The common good can be safeguarded and the requirements of justice can be met without recourse to capital punishment: effective systems of detention have been developed that protect citizens while at the same time do not completely deprive those who are guilty of the possibility of redemption.”

Although the pope did not specifically mention Hasan’s case, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin directly criticized the proposed broadcast Friday, saying it was “unacceptable to turn death into a spectacle.”

The opposition has also reached the American military’s Catholic leadership. Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who oversees Catholic spiritual care for U.S. service members, issued a statement Monday directing Catholic soldiers assigned to the firing squad to request exemptions on religious grounds.

Broglio also questioned whether broadcasting the execution would serve any legitimate purpose, expressing concern about the potential impact on children and the service members responsible for carrying out the sentence.

The dispute has prompted objections from relatives of the Fort Hood victims as well. Keely Vanacker, whose father, Michael Grant Cahill, was killed in the attack, has opposed livestreaming Hasan’s death, arguing that the execution should not be turned into public entertainment.

The proposal would also break sharply with modern American execution practices. Public executions have largely disappeared from the United States, with one of the last major public spectacles occurring in 1936, when Rainey Bethea was hanged in Kentucky before an estimated 20,000 spectators.

Under military law, a death sentence imposed by court-martial cannot be carried out without presidential approval. Trump has already authorized Hasan’s execution, but the separate question of whether the government will livestream it remains under consideration.

Hasan’s execution is scheduled for December 3, nearly 17 years after the Fort Hood massacre.

{Matzav.com}

[COMMUNICATED]

LAST CALL!
Classes Starting Wednesday, 10/21

The PCS/FDU Master’s in Accounting combines top credentials with a singular focus on helping graduates build successful accounting careers.

🏆 The Stats That Matter

✅ 98% employment rate
✅ Top-tier graduates earning $250K+
✅ Ranked among the Best Master’s in Accounting by Eduniversal (2026) and Best Colleges by Forbes (2026)
✅ Highest first-time CPA exam pass rate in NJ

Last call! Classes starting Wednesday, 10/21

👤 Men: 732-905-9700 x665 | Sara@nj.pcsjobs.org
👤 Women: 732-367-1500 | Tova@nj.pcsjobs.org

A Singular Focus on Success: The Key to Building a Thriving Accounting Career

Moshe Rubinovich is an Accounting Student and Tax Preparer at Minster-Kohavi. “My improved performance has also been recognized by my employers through raises since completing the FDU/ PCS course. I’ve repeatedly heard from employers that PCS graduates are particularly desirable because they have a stronger command of fundamental accounting principles and are better equipped to approach and solve accounting problems.”

Rubinovich recommends the field of accounting to anyone looking for a stable and versatile profession, particularly someone who enjoys problem-solving and working with details. “Accounting is a very robust field, and it encompasses far more than I originally imagined,” he says. “There is room for people with many different interests, strengths, and career goals within the profession.”

The FDU/ PCS program’s strong emphasis on accounting fundamentals and adaptability to the changes in the profession (such as AI) provides students with a solid foundation.

“What makes PCS particularly valuable is its singular focus on the success of its graduates,” says Rubinovich. “The program is guided by one central goal: giving its students the knowledge and tools they need to succeed in their careers.”

Rubinovich also appreciated the accessibility of the professors, placement division, and alumni network. “Even after graduation, the professors remain willing to provide guidance, answer questions, and offer assistance when needed. Another major strength is the PCS placement department and the network of PCS graduates. It is a large, closely connected community that is invaluable for advancing in one’s career.”

FDU Master’s in Accounting is Ranked Among the Best Master’s in Accounting by Eduniversal and Best Colleges by Forbes. PCS graduates maintain a 98% employment rate. 

Federal agents searched the Washington, D.C., residence of Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar on Monday, October 12, as part of an ongoing criminal investigation, removing boxes from the property while federal authorities declined to disclose the specific allegations being investigated.

The operation, conducted by Homeland Security Investigations under a warrant obtained by the Justice Department, has drawn attention to longstanding allegations concerning the Minnesota congresswoman’s immigration history. However, federal officials have not publicly confirmed that those allegations are the subject of the investigation, and Omar has not been charged with a crime.

According to the New York Post, investigators arrived at Omar’s Washington residence before dawn and spent several hours conducting the search. Photographs and eyewitness accounts described agents carrying boxes from the home to government vehicles parked nearby.

The Justice Department confirmed the operation in a statement but provided few details about its purpose.

“Today in the Washington, DC, area, Homeland Security Investigations executed a judicially authorized search warrant secured by the Department of Justice,” the department said.

“This enforcement action is part of an ongoing federal investigation.”

The search prompted questions about what evidence investigators were seeking and whether the inquiry involved the congresswoman’s citizenship records, previous immigration filings or other matters.

Former assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Fahey told the Post that obtaining judicial authorization to search a sitting member of Congress’s residence requires investigators to establish a sufficient legal basis.

“The big picture here is a federal judge in Washington, DC, signed off on a search warrant. That means there’s probable cause that a federal crime was committed, and there would be evidence of that crime in the area to be searched, which in this case was Representative Omar’s home,” Fahey said.

A search warrant requires a finding of probable cause, although that determination does not establish that the person whose property is searched has committed a crime. The existence of a warrant also does not necessarily mean prosecutors are preparing to file charges.

Omar responded to the search with a statement on social media declaring, “I will not be silenced” and describing the federal operation as “an attempt to target political enemies and weaponize federal law enforcement.”

The congresswoman’s response framed the search as politically motivated, while federal authorities have maintained that the operation was undertaken pursuant to a court-authorized criminal investigation.

Fahey suggested that securing a warrant from a federal judge in Washington would have required investigators to present persuasive evidence supporting their request.

“For a DC judge to sign off on something that’s 20 years old, you have to say you believe there is current evidence of the crime in her house,” he said.

“A judge must have been very convinced.”

One source who spoke anonymously to the New York Post suggested that investigators may be examining claims that Omar misstated her age when obtaining American citizenship more than two decades ago.

Omar has said she became a U.S. citizen in 2000, when she was 17, through the naturalization of her father, Nur Said Mohamed Elmi, who brought his family to the United States after fleeing Somalia in 1995.

Under the citizenship rules applicable at the time, certain unmarried children under 18 could obtain citizenship through a naturalized parent, provided the other statutory requirements were satisfied.

The allegations center on whether Omar was actually older than 17 when her citizenship was obtained. If that were established, questions could arise about her eligibility for citizenship through that particular process.

The claims have not been substantiated publicly, however, and federal officials have not confirmed that a disputed birth date is the focus of the investigation.

Questions about Omar’s reported age first attracted attention in 2019, when Minnesota political activist AJ Kern pointed to discrepancies in publicly available records.

Kern alleged that certain state documents previously listed Omar’s birth year as 1981, rather than 1982, which appears in her current congressional biography.

According to Kern, the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library changed Omar’s listed birth year shortly after she publicly questioned the congresswoman’s age.

The activist cited archived versions of the state website as evidence of the change. However, a discrepancy in a biographical database does not independently establish that Omar falsified immigration documents.

Current congressional records identify Omar’s birth date as October 1982, consistent with her account of having been 17 when she obtained citizenship in 2000.

The Post reported that one source familiar with the matter raised the possibility that investigators could be seeking more recent documents containing allegedly inaccurate personal information.

The source suggested that passport renewals, financial applications or other records might be relevant if prosecutors believed that inaccurate information had been knowingly repeated in subsequent filings.

Federal criminal cases are subject to statutes of limitations, although the applicable deadlines depend on the specific offense and the circumstances of the alleged conduct.

The source speculated that investigators might be looking for evidence of a more recent violation rather than attempting to prosecute an offense dating entirely to 2000.

Fahey said that a search warrant involving allegations from decades earlier would ordinarily require investigators to demonstrate why evidence relevant to a potentially prosecutable offense might still be found at the residence.

“A federal judge saw something that said, we believe there’s evidence of a crime that will be found in that house, and presumably it would be something that’s not just a crime beyond the statute of limitations,” he said.

“There could be new crimes committed that stemmed from that previous fraud.”

The former prosecutor also suggested that the timing of the operation could indicate investigators had already conducted substantial preliminary work.

“Generally a search warrant is occurring towards the end of an investigation because you’re building up evidence that led to this search warrant,” Fahey said. “To get to the point of searching a home, you’ve developed a case for a fairly decent period of time.”

However, search warrants can be executed at different stages of an investigation, and the operation does not by itself establish that prosecutors are preparing charges.

Omar has previously said that her original birth documentation was destroyed during the upheaval in Somalia. The Post reported that she had not publicly released a birth certificate and did not respond to its request for comment on the specific allegations.

Other news organizations, including CBS News, have reported that the federal investigation concerns immigration paperwork completed by Omar’s late father during her childhood. Those reports have not established that investigators uncovered falsified documents.

The search followed earlier public comments by senior Trump administration officials indicating that Omar’s immigration history was under federal scrutiny.

In September, White House border czar Tom Homan confirmed that an investigation involving the congresswoman was underway.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin also suggested during a podcast appearance that developments were forthcoming in the investigation of Omar’s family immigration history.

The statements preceded Monday’s operation, although federal officials have not explained precisely how the earlier inquiries relate to the evidence sought at the residence.

Omar has also faced years of allegations concerning her marriage to Ahmed Elmi, whom she legally married in Minnesota on February 12, 2009.

Some critics have alleged that Elmi was actually her brother and that the marriage was intended to facilitate immigration benefits. Omar has denied those allegations, which have never been substantiated by a public finding of criminal wrongdoing.

According to the Post, sources familiar with the current investigation do not believe the federal search was directed at the circumstances of that marriage.

Omar’s relationship history has nevertheless remained a subject of political controversy.

She previously entered a religious marriage with Ahmed Hirsi in 2002, although the ceremony did not establish a legally recognized marriage under Minnesota law.

She later married Elmi in a civil ceremony in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, in 2009. The marriage ended in divorce in 2017.

The Post reported that records it reviewed showed Omar, Elmi and Hirsi associated with the same residential address during part of that period.

After divorcing Elmi, Omar legally married Hirsi. That marriage ended in 2019, and she subsequently married political consultant Tim Mynett.

The Post noted that the longstanding allegations about Elmi, even if independently investigated, would involve legal questions distinct from the circumstances under which Omar originally obtained citizenship.

The congresswoman’s office has rejected suggestions of wrongdoing and described the search as an improper use of federal law enforcement against a political opponent.

Omar’s representatives said she had “done nothing wrong” and characterized the operation as an “outrageous abuse of power and an unprecedented escalation in the weaponization of federal law enforcement to target political enemies.”

The timing has also drawn criticism from Democratic congressional leaders because the search took place approximately three weeks before the November 3 midterm elections, when Omar is seeking another term representing Minnesota’s Fifth Congressional District.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries and other senior Democrats questioned whether the operation was consistent with longstanding Justice Department practices intended to avoid investigative actions that could improperly influence elections.

The Justice Department has not publicly released the search warrant, identified the specific criminal statutes under investigation or announced charges against Omar.

For now, the precise nature of the evidence sought during the search remains undisclosed, while the congresswoman continues to deny wrongdoing and federal investigators proceed with their inquiry.

A flight scheduled to depart New York for Israel on Tuesday night was grounded following a bomb threat reportedly made by the same individual responsible for an earlier security scare involving a Delta Air Lines flight that had already landed at Ben Gurion Airport.

According to a report by Kan News, the suspect contacted police for a second time Tuesday, claiming that an explosive device had been planted aboard another aircraft preparing to depart the United States for Israel.

The warning prompted authorities to prevent the aircraft from taking off, with the flight ordered to remain on the ground in New York pending a comprehensive security inspection.

The aircraft will not be cleared for departure until American security personnel complete their examination and the necessary approvals are received from Israeli security authorities and the Transportation Ministry.

The latest incident came just hours after the same individual allegedly made a false bomb report concerning a Delta flight traveling from New York to Tel Aviv.

That aircraft was already airborne when the initial warning was received Tuesday morning, prompting security officials at Ben Gurion Airport to prepare for its arrival.

Upon landing, the Delta aircraft was directed away from the regular terminal area to an isolated parking position, where security teams conducted an extensive examination.

Passengers were safely evacuated from the aircraft while airport security personnel searched for any indication of an explosive device or other suspicious materials.

Following the inspection, the Israel Airports Authority announced that no dangerous items had been discovered and that the security alert had been cleared.

In its official statement regarding the morning incident, the Airports Authority said:

“Following a report of a suspicious item on a Delta aircraft that landed at Ben Gurion Airport, the plane was transferred to a remote parking position. All passengers disembarked safely. The aircraft was thoroughly searched by Ben Gurion Airport security personnel, and the incident concluded without any unusual findings.”

Despite the first warning proving unfounded, the subsequent call triggered another security response, this time before the targeted aircraft could leave American soil.

As of now, the second flight was awaiting clearance from security authorities in both countries. The report did not identify the suspect or indicate whether the individual had been apprehended.

Sen. Bernie Sanders is demanding an immediate suspension of advanced artificial intelligence development and a permanent federal ban on artificial superintelligence, warning that the technology could enable devastating cyberattacks against America’s financial system, hospitals, electrical infrastructure and nuclear facilities.

The Vermont independent issued his warning Monday in a public confrontation with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, criticizing the technology executive’s suggestion that society may have to tolerate serious cybersecurity incidents as a consequence of making powerful AI systems widely available.

Sanders argued that Americans should not be expected to accept potentially catastrophic consequences in exchange for technological advances being pursued by some of the world’s wealthiest corporations.

“No, Mr. Altman. We won’t accept a severe AI cyberattack in exchange for ‘liberty,'” Sanders wrote on X.

“We must PAUSE advanced AI and permanently BAN artificial superintelligence before it is too late.”

The dispute began after Altman discussed the cybersecurity implications of increasingly sophisticated AI systems during an appearance last week on Politico’s “Decoded” podcast.

Altman predicted a “coming tidal wave of cybersecurity problems” as advanced AI capabilities become more accessible, particularly through open-source models that can be obtained and modified by users outside the companies that originally developed them.

He suggested that preserving broad access to the technology would involve accepting “some fairly severe cyber incidents” as part of the trade-off between technological freedom and security.

Sanders responded by questioning whether such an approach adequately considers the consequences of attacks against systems essential to everyday life.

“Should we ‘accept’ a global financial breakdown and massive economic pain if AI models hack into the international banking system?” Sanders asked.

The senator also raised concerns about cyberattacks that could disable hospitals, interrupt electricity supplies across large regions or compromise nuclear power facilities, potentially creating a disaster comparable to Chornobyl.

His criticism reflects a broader argument that AI developers should face enforceable restrictions before releasing systems capable of causing widespread damage.

Sanders accused influential technology executives of placing corporate profits and technological dominance ahead of public safety, arguing that the companies responsible for creating powerful AI systems must remain subject to government oversight.

“The creators of any AI model — open-source or not — are not above the law,” he wrote.

The confrontation follows the September 23 introduction of legislation by Sanders and Rep. Greg Casar, a Texas Democrat, that would establish some of the most far-reaching federal restrictions on artificial intelligence proposed to date.

Known as the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, the measure would permanently prohibit the creation and deployment of artificial superintelligence while imposing a temporary halt on the development of certain advanced AI systems until federal safety requirements are established.

Artificial superintelligence generally refers to a hypothetical form of AI that would surpass human intellectual capabilities across a broad range of activities. Such systems do not currently exist in any publicly established, verified form, although major technology companies are investing heavily in research intended to develop increasingly capable models.

The legislation would establish a Cabinet-level Department of Artificial Intelligence with responsibility for overseeing advanced AI development, enforcing restrictions and implementing safety regulations.

It would also direct the federal government to pursue international agreements aimed at preventing the development of artificial superintelligence in other countries.

Under the proposal, individuals or organizations found guilty of violating certain provisions could face substantial criminal penalties, including prison sentences of up to 20 years.

The bill would also establish federal oversight of advanced AI models throughout their development, requiring regulators to examine systems for dangerous capabilities before they are released.

Among the abilities that would receive particular scrutiny are autonomous cyberattacks, resistance to shutdown commands, the development of biological or chemical weapons, and the capacity of AI systems to create increasingly powerful AI without human supervision.

The proposed federal agency would have authority to oversee the removal of dangerous capabilities and enforce restrictions against prohibited systems. Companies violating the law could face severe sanctions, while individuals responsible for certain offenses could receive lengthy prison terms.

Sanders has previously warned that allowing AI companies to determine their own safety standards creates unacceptable risks for the public.

“When you are racing towards a cliff, you don’t just ease up on the gas pedal. You hit the brakes. When the future of humanity is at stake, we cannot let a handful of Big Tech CEOs write their own rules,” Sanders said when introducing the legislation in September.

Casar has similarly argued that the federal government must act before AI systems become powerful enough to operate beyond meaningful human control.

The debate has gained urgency following reports of AI systems engaging in unauthorized cyber activity, including incidents in which advanced models demonstrated the ability to exploit computer vulnerabilities or behave in ways their developers had not intended.

Concerns about those capabilities have extended beyond Congress. Financial regulators in the United States and Europe have begun examining how increasingly autonomous AI tools could threaten banks and other financial institutions, particularly if compromised systems are used to conduct cyberattacks or disrupt essential operations.

President Donald Trump has taken a markedly different approach to the technology, making American leadership in advanced AI a major administration priority.

The administration has promoted the development of increasingly sophisticated systems and has established a federal initiative known as the Super Intelligence Force, reflecting its emphasis on expanding American technological capabilities.

Trump’s approach has placed the White House at odds with lawmakers who favor mandatory restrictions on the most powerful AI systems.

Altman, meanwhile, has argued that excessively restrictive regulations could leave the development of advanced technology concentrated in the hands of a small number of companies or governments, limiting the benefits of wider access.

Israel’s two major chareidi parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism, may decline to recommend either Prime Minister Binyomin Netanyahu or opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot to form the next government following the October 27 elections, according to senior sources familiar with discussions within the parties.

The possibility represents a significant departure from the longstanding political alliance between the chareidi parties and Netanyahu’s right-wing bloc, raising new questions about how Israel’s next government will be formed and whether the chareidi factions will participate in any coalition immediately after the election.

According to a report published Tuesday by The Jerusalem Post, sources within the chareidi political establishment believe that both Shas and UTJ may prefer to remain in the opposition until a satisfactory solution is reached regarding the military draft and the legal status of yeshiva bochurim.

The emerging approach would allow the parties to avoid committing themselves to either Netanyahu or Eisenkot while maintaining their ability to negotiate with whichever political camp seeks their support.

However, the discussions have not resulted in any formal decision, and the parties’ rabbinic leadership has not issued a definitive ruling instructing their representatives to refrain from recommending a candidate.

The reported shift comes amid considerable frustration within the chareidi community over the outgoing government’s failure to secure comprehensive legislation protecting yeshiva students from military conscription.

Despite years of cooperation with Netanyahu and his political allies, the chareidi parties have struggled to obtain legislation that would provide lasting legal protection for those engaged in full-time Torah study.

The problem has been compounded by concerns that even if the Knesset approves a new draft law, the High Court of Justice could subsequently invalidate it, leaving yeshiva students exposed to renewed legal uncertainty.

For that reason, sources familiar with the discussions say that passage of legislation alone might not be sufficient to persuade Shas and UTJ to enter a coalition.

Instead, the parties may insist on assurances that any arrangement governing the status of yeshiva students will survive judicial scrutiny and remain enforceable.

The emerging position is particularly significant because of the role the president plays after Israeli elections. Following the vote, President Isaac Herzog will consult representatives of the elected parties before deciding which Knesset member should receive the first opportunity to assemble a governing coalition.

Although party recommendations are not legally binding, they provide an important indication of which candidate can command parliamentary support.

If Shas and United Torah Judaism decline to recommend anyone, their decision would leave both Netanyahu and Eisenkot without the immediate backing of parties that could be important to assembling a majority.

The possibility also comes as parties seeking to replace Netanyahu are considering parliamentary strategies that could allow them to exercise influence even before a new government is established.

One proposal under discussion involves replacing Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana after the newly elected Knesset is sworn in.

Opposition parties believe that electing a new speaker could allow them to shape the parliamentary agenda and establish control over important Knesset committees, including the House Committee and the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee.

Those committees could then advance legislation on matters such as establishing a state commission of inquiry into the October 7 attacks and imposing a two-term limit on the office of prime minister.

Such a strategy would not automatically remove Netanyahu from office or guarantee that the opposition could form a government. Nevertheless, it could allow parties opposed to Netanyahu to advance legislative initiatives while he continues serving as caretaker prime minister.

According to the chareidi sources, however, neither Shas nor UTJ is currently expected to actively assist efforts to remove Ohana from the speakership.

It remains unclear whether their representatives would vote against such a move, abstain, or simply avoid participating in the vote.

The sources also suggested that if the opposition can assemble sufficient support to elect a new Knesset speaker, that parliamentary alignment could become the basis for negotiations over forming a government.

Among the possibilities being discussed is a minority government relying on outside support from the Arab Ra’am party, or a coalition that includes Ra’am directly.

At the same time, the chareidi parties are reportedly reluctant to become involved in efforts to replace Netanyahu unless their central demands regarding the draft are addressed.

Another scenario being examined would involve establishing a government without Shas and UTJ initially, then attempting to bring them into the coalition after legislation concerning yeshiva conscription has been enacted.

Yet sources within the chareidi establishment question whether such an arrangement would resolve the fundamental problem, given the possibility of renewed intervention by the High Court.

The developments follow public statements by newly appointed United Torah Judaism chairman MK Yaakov Asher, who declared Monday that his party would no longer consider itself automatically aligned with any political bloc.

In an interview with Kikar HaShabbat, Asher revealed that Rav Dov Landau had explicitly instructed the party leadership to stop identifying with the traditional political camps.

Asher said that UTJ’s participation in a future government would depend on concrete achievements rather than promises made during coalition negotiations.

He insisted that the party would not enter or support a government until legislation regulating the status of yeshiva students had actually been passed.

Asher also acknowledged mistakes made during the outgoing government’s term, particularly regarding the handling of judicial reform and the failure to secure legal protections for yeshiva students.

His remarks reflected a growing determination within Degel HaTorah to avoid repeating a situation in which the party joins a coalition based on commitments that are subsequently delayed or left unfulfilled.

The uncertainty surrounding Shas is more complicated.

Shas chairman Aryeh Deri has previously expressed strong support for Netanyahu and rejected the possibility of joining a government led by Eisenkot.

In a July interview, Deri stated, “We support Netanyahu, period,” while identifying the right-wing and religious parties as Shas’s natural political partners.

However, comments made by Rav Yitzchok Yosef, a leading spiritual authority associated with Shas, suggested that the party’s relationship with Netanyahu was not necessarily beyond reconsideration.

During a July address, Rav Yosef expressed frustration with Netanyahu’s handling of chareidi concerns and suggested that Eisenkot might prove more receptive to dialogue.

Eisenkot, for his part, has indicated that he would consider cooperation with Shas only if it accepted his principles concerning Israel’s Jewish and democratic character and the obligation of citizens to participate in military or national service.

Those conditions illustrate the substantial differences that would need to be addressed before any political understanding could emerge between Eisenkot and the chareidi parties.

The two chareidi factions nevertheless continue to coordinate closely on their shared political interests.

On Sunday, Shas and United Torah Judaism signed a surplus-vote agreement ahead of the election, allowing their parties to pool remaining votes during the allocation of Knesset seats, provided both pass the electoral threshold.

The agreement also underscored their intention to cooperate on matters affecting the chareidi community in the next Knesset, regardless of the eventual composition of the government.

UTJ candidate Moshe Rosenthal recently reinforced the party’s position in an interview with Kol Barama, saying that its participation in a future coalition would depend on legislation protecting yeshiva students that could withstand High Court review.

Rosenthal also emphasized that the final decision regarding political alliances would be made by the gedolei Yisroel following the election.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump delivered a forceful warning to Yemen’s Iranian-backed Houthi terrorists on Tuesday, accusing the group of deliberately attacking Saudi Arabia to send oil prices higher ahead of the November 3 US midterm elections and warning that he would remember their actions long after Americans cast their ballots.

In a sharply worded message posted on Truth Social, Trump suggested that the Houthis had failed to learn from the devastating American airstrikes carried out against their positions last year. He also raised the possibility that Iran was behind the renewed attacks, portraying the Houthi campaign as an effort to manipulate global energy markets and influence American politics.

“The Houthis are behaving very badly. I thought they learned their lesson a year ago when we bombed the …. out of them and, at their request, stopped,” Trump wrote.

The president expressed frustration that the terrorist organization had resumed its activities after an extended period of relative quiet, suggesting that the renewed aggression was being encouraged by Tehran.

“They’ve been silent for a long time, but now they’ve emerged again, probably at the behest of Iran, which is a Failing Nation, with No Navy, No Airforce, the World’s Worst Economy, and 301% Inflation,” he continued.

Trump specifically accused the Houthis of targeting Saudi Arabia with the intention of creating instability in the international oil market. His comments came amid renewed fighting involving Houthi forces and Saudi-backed military elements in Yemen, raising concerns about the security of Saudi territory and regional energy infrastructure.

The Houthis have repeatedly used missiles and drones to threaten neighboring countries and international shipping routes. Their ability to strike targets beyond Yemen’s borders has made the organization a persistent security concern for Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region.

The latest escalation has brought renewed attention to the vulnerability of energy infrastructure in the Persian Gulf region, where military confrontations can create uncertainty about oil production, transportation, and supply.

Trump argued that the timing of the Houthi attacks was politically motivated, accusing the group of attempting to raise fuel costs for American consumers in the final weeks before the congressional elections.

The group has returned “in a very nasty way, hitting Saudi Arabia, and purposefully trying to drive up Oil Prices, probably prior to the U.S. Elections – NOT NICE,” he declared.

The president then directed a warning at the Houthis regarding their apparent belief that the approaching elections might influence Washington’s response.

“Somebody should explain to them that I’m not running in the Elections, I’ve already won, IN A MASSIVE LANDSLIDE, but I’ll be there after the Elections, and I will never forget!” Trump wrote.

{Matzav.com}

A fierce confrontation between Israel’s Litvish chareidi leadership and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich erupted Tuesday morning, as the Hebrew Yated Ne’eman, the official newspaper of Degel HaTorah, published a blistering editorial condemning the Religious Zionism chairman over his recent remarks concerning Rav Dov Landau, Rosh Yeshiva of Slabodka and one of the leading gedolei hador.

The editorial accused Smotrich of displaying extraordinary disrespect toward gedolei Yisroel, exploiting the chareidi parties when their parliamentary support benefited him, and then turning against their rabbinic leadership for political gain. It also reinforced Degel HaTorah’s declaration that the chareidi community should no longer be considered an automatic component of Israel’s right-wing political bloc.

The extraordinary attack followed comments Smotrich made at a Channel 7 conference, where his criticism of Rav Landau provoked outrage among chareidi representatives and their supporters.

Yated Ne’eman opened its editorial with a particularly sharp reference to the Gemara’s account of someone who wished to bite a Torah scholar like a donkey.

“Who will give me a Torah scholar so that I may bite him like a donkey?” the editorial began, describing Smotrich’s remarks as the equivalent of a donkey’s hollow braying.

The newspaper accused the finance minister of having crossed a fundamental boundary by speaking against Rav Landau, whom it described as one of the foremost spiritual authorities of the generation.

It branded Smotrich the “king of ingrates,” arguing that he had readily accepted cooperation from the chareidi parties whenever their support advanced his own political interests.

The editorial maintained that Smotrich had relied on chareidi votes to advance the agenda of the Religious Zionist movement but was now attempting to win additional political support by attacking the very rabbinic leadership whose representatives had helped sustain the coalition.

“When he needed the chareidi vote, he knew exactly where to find it. Now that he is seeking the next vote, he is prepared to trample the hand that was extended toward him,” the newspaper charged.

The criticism went well beyond conventional political disagreements, portraying Smotrich’s remarks as part of a broader confrontation between the Religious Zionist political establishment and the chareidi yeshiva world.

Under a section comparing the current situation to historical campaigns against Torah institutions, the editorial argued that the hostility toward the yeshivos had reached an intolerable level.

“Making a mistake can be forgiven. Going astray is his own problem. Even ideological disagreement is part of public life. But opening one’s mouth against the gedolei hador is one step too far,” the editorial declared.

It then accused Smotrich and his political allies of waging a campaign against the yeshiva world more severe than those conducted by previous foreign rulers of Eretz Yisroel.

“Even the British Mandate government in Eretz Yisroel did not wage war against the yeshiva world the way Smotrich and his associates are doing in the name of ‘redemption.’ Not even an Arab government!” the newspaper asserted.

The editorial also questioned Smotrich’s Torah credentials and challenged his claim to represent a religiously committed political movement.

“Smotrich, even if he were to study his entire life, would not reach even the smallest fraction of what a cheder child knows, yet he dares to speak with such insolence toward gedolei Yisroel,” the newspaper wrote.

It went on to attack the ideological foundations of Religious Zionism, questioning how a movement that describes the establishment of the State of Israel as the beginning of redemption could justify policies that, in the newspaper’s view, undermine the Torah world.

“What kind of redemption is there in a Zionism that persecutes what is most precious and sacred to the Jewish people, while seeking to present itself as ‘the beginning of our redemption,’ when its actions represent the beginning of redemption’s collapse?” the editorial asked.

Beyond its denunciation of Smotrich personally, the editorial addressed the wider political implications of the confrontation, particularly Degel HaTorah’s increasingly explicit rejection of its longstanding identification with Netanyahu’s right-wing bloc.

The newspaper acknowledged that the chareidi parties had spent years cooperating with right-wing political factions, but argued that the relationship had been based on circumstances and practical considerations rather than any permanent ideological alliance.

Using the analogy of residents sharing an apartment building, the editorial suggested that Smotrich’s conduct had made continued political cooperation increasingly untenable.

“True, circumstances led us to live in a shared building, but Smotrich has now placed a warning notice on the property’s registration. Dangerous structure,” the editorial stated.

The newspaper concluded by drawing a sharp distinction between the chareidi community and both of Israel’s principal political camps, declaring that neither the right nor the left could be relied upon to defend Torah interests.

“We are neither right nor left, but the donkey’s braying explained very well why the forced but longstanding relationship has unraveled and everything is now open again,” the editorial declared.

It ended with an unequivocal assertion of political independence: “There is a right-wing bloc hostile to Torah and a left-wing bloc hostile to Torah — and we are a bloc of our own: the bloc of Torah!”

{Matzav.com}

United Torah Judaism is attracting 52% support among Israel’s chareidi voters, while Shas has strengthened its standing within the community, according to new polling figures presented by Dudi Dror of the Askria polling institute ahead of Israel’s upcoming Knesset elections.

The findings indicate that chareidi voters who had previously expressed uncertainty about their electoral choices are increasingly returning to the established chareidi parties as Election Day approaches. However, Dror cautioned that Shas’s improved performance within the chareidi community does not necessarily translate into stronger support among the broader Israeli electorate.

Speaking with Avi Mimran on Kol Chai Radio’s main news program, Dror explained that the proportion of undecided chareidi voters had previously stood at approximately 14%, but that number has begun declining as the election draws nearer.

“Apparently, the campaigns are working,” Dror observed.

According to the figures he presented, United Torah Judaism currently enjoys the backing of 52% of the overall chareidi electorate. When undecided voters are excluded, its share rises to approximately 57% to 58% among those who have settled on a party.

Shas has also registered an increase, climbing from approximately 20% to 24% support among chareidi voters. Among respondents who have already made their electoral decisions, the party receives roughly 27%.

Meanwhile, approximately 8% of chareidi voters indicate that they intend to support parties outside the traditional chareidi political framework.

Dror emphasized that the increase in support for Shas among chareidim should not be confused with an overall electoral surge for the party.

He estimated that Shas’s support within the chareidi sector accounts for approximately four Knesset seats. At the same time, the party has been losing ground among traditional and non-chareidi voters, groups that have historically contributed significantly to its electoral strength.

According to Dror, much of the movement reflected in the latest figures involves voters shifting their preferences within the same general political bloc, rather than crossing from one ideological camp to another.

A significant part of Dror’s analysis focused on younger chareidi voters, particularly those between the ages of 18 and 22 who will be participating in a Knesset election for the first time.

He warned that surveys conducted primarily online may produce a misleading picture of this population, since many young chareidi men spend their days in yeshiva and are less likely to participate in internet-based polling.

“Trying to sample an 18- to 22-year-old chareidi young man online is difficult, because he is usually in yeshiva,” Dror explained.

According to his findings, telephone interviews with young chareidi voters reveal stronger identification with the established chareidi parties than some internet surveys suggest.

Dror also addressed support for Motti Leitner, whose political movement has attracted attention among voters dissatisfied with the traditional chareidi parties. He estimated Leitner’s support at approximately 3% of the chareidi electorate, with greater backing among voters aged 25 and older.

The latest figures contrast with earlier polling conducted by Askria. In September, Dror reported an unusually high level of uncertainty among chareidi voters compared with the corresponding period before the 2022 elections, when only approximately 5% to 6% had remained undecided ten weeks before Election Day.

The new findings also come as broader national polls show difficulties for the established chareidi parties. Recent election surveys have generally placed Shas and United Torah Judaism at a combined 14 to 15 Knesset seats, compared with the 18 seats they won together in the 2022 election.

Dror cautioned against treating any individual poll as a definitive prediction of election results, emphasizing that surveys provide a picture of public opinion at a particular moment rather than a precise forecast of what will happen at the ballot box.

He explained that Askria attempts to improve the accuracy of its research by examining characteristics specific to the chareidi community, including whether male respondents are studying in kollel.

The institute also employs chareidi interviewers to conduct telephone surveys, an approach intended to reach segments of the community that might otherwise be underrepresented.

“The more knowledge you bring,” Dror explained, the better researchers can represent the population they are attempting to measure.

{Matzav.com}

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu personally urged President Donald Trump last week to consider launching another major military offensive against Iran before Israel’s October 27 elections, citing alarming new developments in Tehran’s nuclear program, according to a report Tuesday evening by Barak Ravid of Channel 12 News and Axios.

Trump reportedly responded by encouraging continued military preparations but stopped short of authorizing an attack, leaving open the possibility of renewed hostilities just weeks before elections in both Israel and the United States.

The revelations come amid growing concern within Israel’s defense establishment that a new confrontation with Iran could trigger massive retaliatory missile attacks, potentially forcing the postponement of Israel’s national elections. The American midterm elections are scheduled for November 3, one week after Israelis are set to vote.

According to the report, which cited two senior American administration officials, a senior Israeli official, and another individual familiar with the discussions, Netanyahu raised the possibility of resuming large-scale military operations during conversations with Trump last week.

The Israeli prime minister reportedly argued that recent Iranian nuclear activities had created new security concerns requiring serious consideration of immediate military action. The report did not publicly specify the nuclear developments Netanyahu identified or provide an independent assessment of their significance.

One senior American official said Trump did not dismiss Netanyahu’s proposal and indicated that preparations should move forward. However, the president offered no commitment regarding whether an operation would actually take place or when it might begin.

Israeli officials initially came away from the discussions believing Trump might support a new offensive. That impression subsequently weakened as American officials indicated that the president had not reached a final decision.

The uncertainty is particularly significant because Trump publicly declared last Thursday that the United States would not resume attacks against Iran before the November 3 midterm elections.

In his announcement, Trump said that despite Iran’s weakened military and economic position, Washington intended to maintain its pressure campaign while avoiding renewed strikes during the weeks preceding the American vote.

The president also pointed to continuing diplomatic contacts with Tehran, which American officials have described as productive, although major disagreements remain unresolved.

Despite Trump’s public statement, military preparations have reportedly continued. US Central Command and the IDF have been examining operational options in the event that political leaders authorize another round of fighting.

Earlier reporting indicated that the Pentagon had instructed American military commanders to complete preparations for potentially extensive strikes against Iranian targets. Those preparations reportedly included options involving Iranian nuclear facilities, energy infrastructure, and other strategic installations.

The possibility of renewed fighting has generated considerable unease among senior Israeli military officials, particularly because of the potential consequences for the upcoming Knesset elections.

IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir reportedly raised the issue directly with his American counterpart, Gen. Dan Caine, warning that a major American-Israeli operation could provoke a substantial Iranian missile response against Israel.

Such an escalation could disrupt civilian life throughout the country and interfere with the ability to conduct national elections on October 27.

According to previous reports, American military officials informed Zamir that they had received instructions to prepare for a significant attack within approximately three weeks, placing the potential operation immediately before Israel’s election.

Zamir reportedly cautioned that the resulting Iranian retaliation could make it impossible to hold the vote as scheduled.

The military discussions have also become entangled in questions surrounding the political calculations of both governments.

American officials cited in Tuesday’s report suggested that Netanyahu’s approaching election may be influencing his interest in renewed military action. One official characterized the prime minister as believing that leading Israel during wartime strengthens his political standing.

That assessment represents the official’s interpretation of Netanyahu’s political considerations, rather than an established explanation for his actions.

A separate disagreement has emerged over which leader originally proposed accelerating military operations.

According to the report, Netanyahu told senior Israeli defense officials that Trump had raised the possibility of striking Iran before the elections. American officials familiar with the conversations, however, attributed the initiative to Netanyahu.

The disagreement over the origin of the proposal follows another report over the weekend claiming that Washington had encouraged Israel to conduct a unilateral attack against Iran, potentially allowing the United States to avoid the political consequences of direct American involvement. Two American officials and one Israeli official subsequently disputed that account, saying Washington had made no such request.

Within the Trump administration, officials are also divided over whether renewed military action would advance American objectives.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and senior commanders at US Central Command are reportedly among the strongest advocates of another major offensive. Other presidential advisers favor maintaining economic sanctions and financial pressure against Tehran rather than immediately reopening large-scale hostilities.

The diplomatic situation remains unresolved. Qatari mediators are awaiting Iran’s response to the latest American proposal aimed at ending the conflict, including demands for concessions involving Tehran’s nuclear activities.

American officials have indicated that negotiations remain technically active, although there has been little indication of a breakthrough.

The report also identified a specific Israeli concern regarding Iran’s possible use of Pickaxe Mountain, an underground site, for uranium enrichment. Israeli intelligence reportedly believes Tehran is attempting to restore multiple components of its nuclear program, raising questions about the effectiveness of previous military operations.

Netanyahu’s office denied that the prime minister was pressing Trump to attack Iran before the elections, saying that he maintains regular contact with the president and senior American officials but does not disclose the contents of those conversations.

A White House official went further, disputing the report that the two leaders had discussed restarting the war and reiterating Trump’s publicly stated position against attacking Iran before the American midterms.

Meanwhile, Trump indicated Tuesday that a decision regarding Iran could be approaching. Speaking to reporters, the president described Iran as a failed country and said, “we will make a decision on Iran very soon.”

A significant political realignment is taking shape within Agudas Yisroel following a newly signed agreement bringing Vizhnitz-Merkaz into the growing alliance between Belz and Shlomei Emunim, a development that could substantially alter the balance of power among the chassidishe factions of United Torah Judaism.

The agreement was signed Monday evening by Elyakim Stark, the newly designated Belz representative on the United Torah Judaism electoral list, and Shlomo Greenberger, chairman of the political committee of Vizhnitz-Merkaz.

Following the signing, the two representatives visited the Vizhnitzer Rebbe of Vizhnitz-Merkaz to receive his bracha.

The agreement represents a notable shift in the internal politics of Agudas Yisroel, where Vizhnitz-Merkaz had previously been associated with the political camp led by Ger.

The new arrangement strengthens the Belz–Shlomei Emunim bloc, which has been working to expand its influence ahead of the next Knesset elections.

The agreement followed several months of political maneuvering and discussions concerning the future representation of Vizhnitz-Merkaz within Agudas Yisroel.

Sources familiar with the negotiations indicated that Greenberger, a businessman involved in advertising who assumed responsibility for much of the chassidus’s political activity over the past year, played a central role in developing the new relationship.

The negotiations reportedly gained momentum after disagreements emerged between Vizhnitz-Merkaz and the Ger-aligned leadership over the position of Rav Yaakov Waltzer, secretary of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah of Agudas Yisroel.

Waltzer is affiliated with the other major Vizhnitz chassidus, based in Kiryas Vizhnitz in Bnei Brak, which has longstanding differences with Vizhnitz-Merkaz.

According to the reports, approximately two months ago representatives of Vizhnitz-Merkaz approached Ger and sought Waltzer’s removal from his position.

The proposal reportedly called for Ger to initiate the move, thereby avoiding the appearance of an internal dispute between the two Vizhnitz communities.

When the request was rejected, Vizhnitz-Merkaz began pursuing discussions with Belz and Shlomei Emunim, ultimately leading to Monday’s agreement.

The political significance extends beyond the addition of another chassidus to the Belz–Shlomei Emunim camp.

The agreement potentially brings thousands of additional voters into the alliance while also adding another Rebbe represented on the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah to the political grouping.

Sources within Belz described the agreement as part of a broader effort to expand the alliance and indicated that negotiations are already underway with additional chassidishe communities.

One source associated with the discussions said the move provides the bloc with thousands of additional votes and another Rebbe on the Moetzes, adding that efforts are now focused on bringing another community into the arrangement.

The development also carries implications for Ger, which has traditionally exercised considerable influence within Agudas Yisroel through its Central Faction.

Ger maintains a close political relationship with the other Vizhnitz chassidus, represented in United Torah Judaism by MK Yaakov Tessler.

With Vizhnitz-Merkaz now aligning itself with Belz and Shlomei Emunim, the two major Vizhnitz communities will find themselves associated with competing political blocs.

Observers of chareidi politics say the agreement reflects a continuing effort by the Belz–Shlomei Emunim alliance to consolidate its influence and challenge the longstanding political arrangements within Agudas Yisroel.

The realignment comes as the chareidi parties face significant challenges, particularly the unresolved military draft controversy and the question of how the next government will address the status of bnei yeshivos.

The agreement does not by itself determine the allocation of positions on the United Torah Judaism electoral list, but it could influence future negotiations over representation and political priorities.

The signing ceremony and subsequent visit to the Vizhnitzer Rebbe were photographed by Yehoshua Prochter, with images published Tuesday in the chareidi media.

Sources close to the Belz–Shlomei Emunim alliance say Monday’s agreement is intended to be the beginning of a broader expansion, with discussions involving other communities already underway.

{Matzav.com}

The U.S. dollar climbed toward its highest level in approximately 18 months on Monday, gaining ground against major international currencies and the Israeli shekel as investors weighed escalating tensions in the Middle East and awaited important American inflation figures expected later this week.

The dollar advanced approximately 0.37% against the shekel, reaching roughly 3.07 shekels per dollar. The increase came as global currency markets reacted to geopolitical uncertainty, fluctuations in energy prices, and changing expectations regarding the Federal Reserve’s next interest rate decision.

The U.S. Dollar Index, which tracks the American currency against a basket of six major foreign currencies, increased 0.2% to 102.43, placing it near its strongest level in a year and a half.

Financial market positioning also indicates that investors have become considerably more optimistic about the dollar’s prospects.

During the week ending October 7, positions reflecting expectations of further dollar appreciation reached approximately $36 billion, compared with just $8.4 billion three weeks earlier. Much of that increase involved positions against the euro.

Investors are now focused on Wednesday’s scheduled release of the U.S. Consumer Price Index, a closely watched inflation measure that could influence expectations for future interest rate decisions.

According to CME FedWatch data cited in the report, traders currently assign an 81% probability to the Federal Reserve leaving interest rates unchanged at its October meeting. That compares with a 51% probability one month earlier.

The shift follows last month’s Federal Reserve rate increase, described as the central bank’s first hike since 2023.

A decision to maintain current borrowing costs would indicate that policymakers are waiting for additional evidence about inflation and the broader economy before considering another adjustment.

The Middle East conflict has added another layer of uncertainty, particularly in energy markets, where renewed Houthi attacks against Saudi Arabia and strikes on two oil tankers over the weekend have heightened concerns about regional supplies.

Brent crude futures initially slipped approximately 0.5% to $104 per barrel during Monday’s trading before reversing direction. By later in the day, Brent had climbed to approximately $107.17 a barrel, reflecting renewed concerns about disruptions to oil production and transportation.

Oil prices have remained substantially elevated amid the regional fighting, with Brent trading roughly 45% above its level before the outbreak of the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran.

The energy market has also been reacting to President Trump’s announcement of an agreement between Russia and Ukraine to suspend attacks on energy infrastructure. However, uncertainty surrounding the implementation of that arrangement has limited its calming effect on oil prices.

The euro, meanwhile, continued its downward trend against the dollar, falling 0.22% to approximately $1.1176 after five consecutive weeks of losses.

Concerns about France’s government finances have contributed to pressure on the European currency, with investors increasingly uneasy about the country’s debt burden and the political challenges surrounding efforts to reduce its budget deficit.

The yield difference between French and German 10-year government bonds stood at approximately 140 basis points, reflecting the additional compensation investors are demanding to hold French debt.

Elsewhere in currency trading, the dollar rose to approximately 158.61 Japanese yen, while the British pound remained relatively steady at around $1.323.

India’s rupee strengthened approximately 1.1% to 95.7 per dollar after the country’s central bank introduced measures designed to ease pressure on the currency, including redirecting certain dollar purchases by oil companies away from the regular foreign exchange market.

In Israel, the Bank of Israel’s official representative exchange rate for Monday was set at 3.078 shekels per dollar, representing an increase of approximately 0.75% from the previous published rate. The euro’s representative rate stood at 3.4422 shekels.

The next major test for currency markets will come Wednesday with the release of U.S. inflation figures. Economists are expecting consumer prices to show continued pressure from rising energy costs, a development that could influence whether the Federal Reserve maintains its current interest rate or considers additional increases in the months ahead.

{Matzav.com}