The Tel Aviv District Traffic Magistrate Court ruled this week in a case involving gender segregation on a public bus, levying fines and awarding compensation following an incident that occurred in January 2023 on Dan Bus Line 292, which runs between Bnei Brak and Petach Tikva.
The case stemmed from an encounter in which a 76-year-old woman was instructed by a bus inspector to relocate to the back of the bus on the claim that the route operated under a “Mehadrin” arrangement. After she declined to comply, she was subjected to derogatory and discriminatory comments, with the bus driver also taking part in the exchange.
The court’s decision followed an indictment submitted by the National Prosecutions Department within the Ministry of Transport and Road Safety, in line with the ministry’s stated policy of active enforcement in such matters.
As part of the ruling, Dan Bus Company was found guilty and ordered to pay a fine of 40,000 shekels, along with personal compensation of 20,000 shekels to the affected passenger.
The bus inspector involved in the incident was fined 6,000 shekels, instructed to pay the passenger an additional 2,000 shekels in personal compensation, given a suspended driver’s license conditional on future conduct, and required to post a commitment of 50,000 shekels for a three-year period.
The bus driver, whose role was described by the court as limited, was fined 2,500 shekels and committed to refrain from similar conduct for three years, backed by a financial undertaking of 15,000 shekels.
Transport Minister Miri Regev praised the outcome, saying, “I welcome this verdict, which comes as a direct result of the clear and determined policy of the Ministry of Transport. Gender segregation and discrimination in public transportation are a red line. We will act with all the tools at our disposal, including field enforcement and legal proceedings, to ensure that every passenger receives equal, respectful, and safe service.”
{Matzav.com}The Knesset voted Wednesday to block a proposed “Who is a Jew” bill introduced by MK Avi Maoz of the Noam party, halting the initiative at its initial stage.
The legislation aimed to stipulate that registration as a Jew in Israel’s population registry would rely exclusively on conversions recognized by Israel’s rabbinic courts.
In the preliminary vote, the proposal was defeated by a margin of 60 to 15, with support coming from a limited number of lawmakers, including members of the United Torah Judaism and Shas factions.
Maoz pointed to what he described as a contradiction between the outcome of the vote and remarks made last month by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir at an event in Kfar Chabad, where he said, “We need to pass the ‘Who is a Jew’ bill.” Despite that statement, the Otzma Yehudit and Religious Zionist parties did not back the bill during the plenary vote.
Coalition sources placed the blame for the failure on Maoz himself, arguing that his decision to advance the bill without securing sufficient support doomed its prospects. “Maoz proposed the bill from the opposition without a majority. This move harms the bill since it’s now automatically postponed by half a year. He is trying to make political gains, but in fact, he delayed the bill,” the sources said.
The same sources added that the move ran counter to guidance from Chabad rabbis, saying they had advised moving forward only once enough votes were assured. “Who instructed to advance the bill only when there is the needed majority to pass it. Unfortunately, it would seem that Avi Maoz’s goal is to try to undermine the coalition and harm the stability of the right-wing government,” they said.
Responding to the vote, Maoz described the outcome as a “historic miss” and said the struggle over Israel’s Jewish identity would continue both publicly and in the Knesset. “Today we see who is prepared to stand behind their declarations about a Jewish state and who chooses to run away at the moment of truth,” he said.
{Matzav.com}
A bipartisan Senate effort to rein in President Donald Trump’s war powers authority collapsed after Republican leaders employed a rarely used procedural maneuver and two GOP senators reversed course, delivering a narrow victory for the White House.
Republicans invoked an obscure Senate process—previously used by Democrats in a similar circumstance—to invalidate a war powers resolution introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia that focused on Venezuela. The move followed last week’s vote in which five Republicans joined Democrats to advance the measure, setting up a confrontation that quickly drew the ire of Trump.
The president lashed out at the Republicans who had initially supported the resolution, declaring they “should never be elected to office again.”
The resolution was ultimately defeated by a 51-50 vote, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaking vote to side with Trump.
Turning to the little-used procedural step amounted to a rebound for both the president and Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota after Republicans suffered an unusual floor setback the previous week.
Thune and other GOP leaders argued that the measure did not apply to current conditions in Venezuela and therefore should not receive privileged consideration.
“We don’t have troops in Venezuela. There is no kinetic action, there are no operations,” Thune said. “There are no boots on the ground. And I think the question is whether or not there ought to be expedited consideration or privilege accorded to something that’s brought to the floor that doesn’t reflect what’s what is current reality in Venezuela.”
“And so I think it’s very fair for Republicans to question why we ought to be having this discussion right now, particularly at a time when we’re trying to do appropriations bills,” he continued.
In the days leading up to the vote, Thune, Senate Republican leadership, Trump, and senior administration officials pressed the five GOP senators who had initially helped advance the resolution to change their positions. While not all of them did, Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Todd Young of Indiana provided the decisive switches that ensured the resolution’s defeat.
Hawley said his concerns centered on whether the administration planned to deploy U.S. forces to Venezuela. After multiple briefings and discussions with Trump administration officials, he concluded that additional military action was not forthcoming.
“To me, this is all about going forward,” Hawley said of his reversal. “If the president decides we need to put troops on the ground in Venezuela, then Congress will need to weigh in.”
Young declined to signal his intentions until the vote was underway. Before entering the chamber, he said assurances he received from Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other officials persuaded him to oppose the resolution.
Those assurances included commitments that Trump would seek congressional authorization before using force in Venezuela and that Rubio would testify publicly before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the coming weeks to brief lawmakers on developments in the region.
“Those who understand how Congress works, the good and the bad and the ugly, understand that votes like this, in the end, are communications exercises,” Young said. “They’re important communications exercises, but unless you can secure sufficient votes, not only to pass the United States Senate, but to get out of the House, with which is highly questionable, right, and then to override what was an inevitable presidential veto, which is impossible. No one can tell me how we get there.”
“I had to accept that this was all a communications exercise,” he continued. “I think we use this moment to shine a bright light on Congress’ shortcomings as it relates to war powers in recent history.”
Despite the reversal by Hawley and Young, Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Rand Paul of Kentucky sided with Democrats in a last-ditch attempt to keep the measure alive.
Most Republicans who received briefings on the situation argued that recent U.S. actions tied to Venezuela were justified, describing them as part of a law enforcement effort aimed at apprehending Nicolás Maduro rather than a broader military campaign.
In a letter to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman James Risch of Idaho, Rubio emphasized that U.S. forces are not deployed in the country.
“There are currently no U.S. Armed Forces in Venezuela,” Rubio wrote.
“Should there be any new military operations that introduce U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities, they will be undertaken consistent with the Constitution of the United States, and we will transmit written notifications consistent with section 4(a) of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148),” he added.
Kaine, who had expressed confidence that the resolution would pass, criticized the procedural maneuver ahead of the final vote.
“If people want to just say, ‘Hey, President Trump, do whatever the hell you want,’ Let them vote that way, but don’t change the rules of the Senate in a way that might disable future Senates that do have a backbone,” Kaine told reporters.
{Matzav.com}
[Video below.] Commentator Candace Owens publicly dismissed evidence of protests and killings in Iran, asserting that no demonstrations are taking place and alleging that reports of unrest amount to a Jewish psyop orchestrated by Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu.
In remarks online, Owens claimed that there are no mass protests in Iran and denied that Iranian citizens are being killed by the regime. She went further, alleging that the narrative of an Iranian uprising is fabricated and driven by Jewish interests tied to Netanyahu, framing the situation as a coordinated deception rather than a domestic revolt.
Owens’ comments come amid extensive reporting from international media, human rights organizations, and video evidence documenting demonstrations across Iran and deadly crackdowns by Iranian security forces. Multiple independent sources have reported fatalities, arrests, and violent suppression of protesters, contradicting Owens’ assertions.
Owens’ comments about Iran represent a pattern of inflammatory rhetoric and conspiracy-driven narratives. Whatever debate may have existed about her prior intent or ideology has been settled by her willingness to deny documented killings while invoking antisemitic explanations.
WATCH:
{Matzav.com}
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. offered a candid and humorous assessment of President Trump’s eating habits, saying that while the president’s food choices are the worst in the administration, his energy and endurance remain extraordinary.
Speaking in an interview released Tuesday on “The Katie Miller Podcast,” Kennedy was asked whose diet stands out as the most extreme, and he immediately pointed to the president.
“The interesting thing about the president is that he eats really bad food, which is McDonald’s, and, you know, candy and Diet Coke,” Kennedy continued. “He drinks the Diet Coke at all times.”
Despite that description, Kennedy expressed amazement at Trump’s physical resilience. “He has the constitution of a deity. I don’t know how he’s alive, but he is.”
Kennedy explained that his impression largely comes from observing Trump while traveling together, noting that the president himself has addressed the issue. According to Kennedy, Trump “says that the only time that he eats junk food is when he’s on the road.”
“He wants to eat food from big corporations because he trusts it. He doesn’t want to get sick when he’s on the road,” Kennedy said of the president, who has made similar remarks in the past. “When he’s at Mar-a-Lago or at the White House, he’s eating really good food.”
Kennedy acknowledged that constant travel can distort perceptions of the president’s daily habits. “If you travel with him, you get this idea that he’s just pumping himself full of poison all day long. And you don’t know how he’s walking around, much less being the most energetic person, you know, any of us have ever met. But, I think he actually does eat pretty good food usually,” he added.
As HHS secretary, Kennedy has made changes to American nutrition a central focus of his agenda, frequently criticizing excessive sugar consumption and ultra-processed foods.
That push was reflected last week when the White House introduced updated dietary guidelines, depicted as an upside-down pyramid that places vegetables, fruits, proteins, dairy, and healthy fats at the top, with whole grains positioned at the bottom.
Even so, Kennedy emphasized that Trump’s overall health remains exceptional. He said Trump is “in incredible health,” adding that Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrator Mehmet Oz reviewed the president’s medical records and “said he’s got the highest testosterone levels that he’s ever seen for an individual over 70 years old.”
“I know the president will be happy that I repeat that,” Kennedy added, with a laugh.
Trump’s fondness for fast food has long been a subject of public discussion. After returning to the White House last year, the president brought back his well-known valet button on the Resolute Desk, which he uses to call staff to bring him another Diet Coke.
{Matzav.com}
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont has introduced legislation aimed at stopping President Donald Trump from attaching his own name to federal buildings, following recent actions by the administration to rename prominent national institutions.
In announcements made late last month, the Trump administration said the U.S. Institute of Peace and the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts would be rebranded as the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace and the Trump-Kennedy Center.
Those moves prompted Sanders to act alongside Sens. Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland. Together, they submitted a bill designed to bar sitting presidents from naming federal properties after themselves and to undo Trump’s recent renaming decisions.
In a statement released with the bill, Sanders sharply criticized the president’s actions, arguing that they violate the law.
“It’s no secret that President Trump is undermining democracy and moving this country toward authoritarianism. Part of that strategy is to create the myth of the ‘Great Leader’ by naming public buildings after himself — something that dictators have done throughout history,” Sanders said. “For Trump to put his name on federal buildings is arrogant and it is illegal. We must put an end to this narcissism.”
The proposed legislation is titled the SERVE Act, short for the Stop Executive Renaming for Vanity and Ego Act.
Under the bill, federal buildings, land, and other government assets could not be named for a sitting president, and federal money could not be used for that purpose.
The measure would also apply retroactively, which would remove Trump’s name from both the Kennedy Center and the Institute of Peace.
According to the press release, the proposal has also been submitted as an amendment to a government funding package currently under consideration in the Senate.
While some federal buildings bear the names of past presidents, such as the Kennedy Center, those designations have typically occurred after a president left office.
In one example, President Lyndon B. Johnson renamed the National Cultural Center in honor of John F. Kennedy two months after Kennedy was assassinated. Similarly, the Harry S. Truman Federal Building, which houses the U.S. State Department, received its name in 2000, more than four decades after Truman’s presidency ended.
A New York Times analysis found that before Trump, no federal buildings had ever been named after a sitting president.
{Matzav.com}
A senior Danish official said Wednesday that sharp differences remain with President Donald Trump over Greenland, even after closely watched meetings at the White House with Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, as Trump continues to press for U.S. control of the island.
While no breakthrough was reached, officials from both sides agreed to establish a joint working group aimed at managing disputes, as Trump maintains his call for a U.S. takeover of the semiautonomous territory that belongs to NATO ally Denmark.
“The group, in our view, should focus on how to address the American security concerns, while at the same time respecting the red lines of the Kingdom of Denmark,” Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen told reporters after the talks, which he attended alongside Greenland’s foreign minister, Vivian Motzfeldt. He said it remains “clear that the president has this wish of conquering over Greenland.”
Trump has been publicly arguing that NATO should support U.S. acquisition of Greenland, insisting that anything short of American control is insufficient.
As Washington presses its case, Denmark announced plans to expand its military footprint in the Arctic and North Atlantic, responding to Trump’s repeated claims that China and Russia are positioning themselves to gain influence over Greenland, a region believed to hold major untapped reserves of critical minerals.
Trump did not attend Wednesday’s meeting, but shortly afterward, he reiterated his stance in remarks to reporters in the Oval Office.
“We need Greenland for national security,” Trump said. He added: “We’ll see how it all works out. I think something will work out.”
Ahead of the talks, Trump used social media to urge NATO to back U.S. efforts to acquire Greenland.
“NATO becomes far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the UNITED STATES,” Trump wrote. “Anything less than that is unacceptable.”
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has largely avoided inserting himself into the dispute, keeping distance as alliance members express unease over Trump’s confrontational posture toward Denmark.
Despite the tensions, Rasmussen and Motzfeldt said they view the discussions as a possible opening toward easing the standoff and shifting the focus toward closer cooperation with Washington.
“We have shown where our limits are and from there, I think that it will be very good to look forward,” Motzfeldt said.
In Copenhagen, Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen announced that Denmark would step up its “military presence and exercise activity” in the Arctic and North Atlantic, acting “in close cooperation with our allies.”
Poulsen said the decision reflects growing uncertainty in the security environment. “No one can predict what will happen tomorrow,” he said.
“This means that from today and in the coming time there will be an increased military presence in and around Greenland of aircraft, ships and soldiers, including from other NATO allies,” Poulsen added.
He said personnel from other NATO countries are already arriving in Greenland alongside Danish forces but declined to identify the contributing nations, saying allies would make their own announcements.
So far, the publicly disclosed measures appear limited. Germany said it would deploy 13 personnel to Greenland this week “to explore the framework for potential military contributions.” Sweden announced it would send an unspecified number of troops for exercises, and Norway is dispatching two military officers to assess future cooperation, Defense Minister Tore O. Sandvik told the newspaper VG.
NATO is also evaluating broader ways to strengthen its Arctic posture, according to an alliance official who spoke on condition of anonymity. The official said there is agreement within NATO “that security in the High North is a priority.”
Greenland’s strategic value has grown as climate change reduces ice coverage, potentially opening shorter shipping routes to Asia and making it easier to access critical minerals used in electronics and other technologies.
Trump has also linked Greenland to U.S. missile defense plans, calling the island “vital” to the Golden Dome system and arguing that American control is necessary to counter Russian and Chinese maritime activity.
“If we don’t go in, Russia is going to go in and China is going to go in,” Trump said again Wednesday. “And there’s not a thing that Denmark can do about it, but we can do everything about it.”
That claim is widely questioned by analysts and many Greenland residents, and it has become a subject of intense discussion in Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, where international media crews have gathered.
“The only Chinese I see is when I go to the fast food market,” said heating engineer Lars Vintner, adding that he frequently sails and hunts and has never encountered Russian or Chinese vessels.
Others expressed skepticism that the Washington talks would change Trump’s approach.
“Trump is unpredictable,” said Geng Lastein, who moved to Greenland from the Philippines 18 years ago.
Maya Martinsen, 21, said she rejects Trump’s security arguments, believing instead that the president is motivated by Greenland’s natural resources.
She said Trump is focused on the “oils and minerals that we have that are untouched.”
Greenland “has beautiful nature and lovely people,” Martinsen added. “It’s just home to me. I think the Americans just see some kind of business trade.”
Denmark has emphasized that the U.S. already maintains a military presence on Greenland and is free to expand its bases. Washington operates under a 1951 treaty that allows it to establish military facilities there with approval from Denmark and Greenland.
Later Wednesday, Rasmussen and Motzfeldt, along with Denmark’s ambassador to the United States, were scheduled to meet with senators from the Arctic Caucus. A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers is also traveling to Copenhagen this week for talks with Danish and Greenlandic officials.
Despite the ongoing dispute, both Danish and Greenlandic leaders said dialogue remains essential.
“It is in everybody’s interest — even though we disagree — that we agree to try to explore whether it is doable to accommodate some of the concerns while at the same time respecting the integrity of the Danish kingdom’s territory and the self-determination of the Greenlandic people,” Løkke Rasmussen said.
{Matzav.com}
As Israel heads toward national elections scheduled for later this year, a new public opinion survey points to significant erosion in confidence in the integrity of the electoral process and in the willingness of the public and political parties to accept the results.
Findings from the Israeli Society Index published by the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI) show that while a majority of Israelis still express trust in the elections, a large and meaningful minority harbor doubts about both their fairness and their aftermath. The skepticism cuts across political camps and population groups.
According to the survey, about two-thirds of Israelis (65%) believe the upcoming elections will be free and fair. At the same time, 31% say they are not convinced the elections will meet those standards.
Distrust is particularly pronounced among Arab citizens of Israel. Among Arab respondents, roughly 51% said they are not convinced the elections will be fair and free, compared to 43% who expressed confidence in the process. Among Jewish respondents, 70% said they trust the fairness of the elections, while 27% said they do not.
Political affiliation plays a decisive role in attitudes toward election fairness. A clear majority of respondents identifying with the right (85%) and the center-right (78%) said they believe the elections will be conducted fairly. By contrast, an exceptionally high share of those identifying with the left — 78% — said they are not convinced the elections will be fair.
JPPI noted that this finding reflects an unusually deep level of suspicion and highlights a profound divide between political camps over the perceived legitimacy of the democratic process itself.
Beyond concerns about fairness, the survey uncovered even greater anxiety regarding the period after Election Day. While 57% of respondents said they believe the public and political parties will accept the election results, 38% — nearly four in ten Israelis — said they are not convinced this will happen. Within that group, 11% said they are “not convinced at all” that the results will be accepted.
Overall, the data indicate that nearly four in ten Israelis doubt that the election results will be broadly accepted by both the public and the political system.
Here too, differences emerged between Jewish and Arab respondents. Among Arab citizens, 45% believe there is a real risk that the election results will not be accepted. Among Jewish respondents, 59% said they believe the results will be accepted, while more than a third — 36% — expressed uncertainty.
Interestingly, unlike the sharp ideological polarization seen on the question of election fairness, skepticism about acceptance of the results appears to be widespread across the political spectrum. Comparable levels of concern were recorded among respondents identifying with the right, center, and left.
Commenting on the findings, Yedidia Stern, president of JPPI, warned that the data should be viewed as a serious warning sign.
“The findings are a warning signal for all of us,” Stern said. “Without agreed-upon and stable rules of the game, Israeli democracy will continue to erode. For some time now, there has been a significant decline in public trust in state institutions, but this survey shows that distrust is now spreading to the most basic democratic process — elections.”
He added that democracy cannot function properly if a substantial portion of the public suspects the fairness of elections or hesitates to accept their outcomes. “The survey points to the possibility of a storm that could threaten all of us after the elections, regardless of the results,” Stern said.
Stern also argued that advancing what he described as a broadly agreed-upon “lean constitution” could help ease extreme suspicion between political camps, strengthen trust in state institutions, and stabilize Israel’s political system. Such a framework, he said, is essential for safeguarding the country’s democratic resilience.
{Matzav.com}
Iran moved Wednesday to temporarily restrict its airspace, halting most flights as unrest inside the country continued and tensions with the United States remained elevated, according to flight-tracking data and official aviation notices.
Tehran issued a Notice to Air Missions shortly after 5 p.m. ET, blocking all air traffic except for international flights entering or leaving Iran with special authorization, FlightRadar24 reported.
The restriction was set to remain in effect for just over two hours, according to the notice.
At the moment the warning took effect, only five aircraft could be seen operating within Iranian airspace, the flight-tracking website showed.
The brief shutdown followed remarks from President Trump indicating that he believed the Iranian government had paused executions of anti-government demonstrators and suggesting that immediate U.S. military action against Iran was unlikely.
“We’ve been told that the killing in Iran is stopping. It’s stopped. It’s stopping, and there’s no plan for executions,” Trump said in the Oval Office.
“So I’ve been told that a good authority — we will find out about it. I’m sure if it happens, we’ll all be very upset… but that’s just gotten to me, the information that the killing has stopped, that the executions have stopped, they’re not going to have an execution.”
Trump added that he had received information from what he described as “very important sources” inside Iran indicating that the regime was easing its crackdown on protests that have spread across the country.
Around the same time Iran imposed the airspace restriction, the United Kingdom issued a separate advisory warning against “all but essential” travel to Israel, citing heightened tensions across the Middle East.
{Matzav.com}
