Matzav

Early on Friday, sirens were triggered in Tel Aviv, Yerushalayim, the Shfela, and the Sharon region, signaling an imminent threat.

The IDF Spokesperson’s Unit confirmed, “Following the sirens that sounded a short while ago in several areas in Israel, a missile launched from Yemen was intercepted.” They also emphasized that the sirens were activated as per standard protocol.

Magen David Adom reported that, “following the sirens heard in central Israel and the Shfela in recent minutes, as of now, no calls have been received regarding casualties, except for cases of people injured while heading to shelter.”

Before the sirens went off, the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit issued an initial directive, stating, “The IDF has identified the launch of a missile from Yemen toward Israeli territory. IAF aerial defense systems are operating to intercept the threat. The public is instructed to follow the guidelines issued by the Home Front Command.”

This follows the recent upgrade to Israel’s early missile warning system, which was revealed the previous day.

The missile launch from Yemen came just hours after the US military conducted targeted airstrikes on fuel infrastructure controlled by the Iran-backed Houthi terrorist group in Yemen.

In related developments, US Central Command (CENTCOM) reported that the operation was aimed at dismantling a major revenue stream that was fueling the Houthi group’s ongoing attacks and regional instability.

The Houthi-run Al-Masirah TV reported that the US airstrike resulted in at least 33 deaths and 88 injuries.

{Matzav.com Israel}

While standing beside Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday, Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani criticized Israel for allegedly failing to uphold the terms of a ceasefire and hostage agreement that Qatar helped facilitate earlier this year.

“As you know, we reached an agreement months ago, but unfortunately, Israel did not abide by this agreement,” said Al-Thani. He added that his country remains committed to “strive to bridge perspectives in order to reach an agreement that ends the suffering of the Palestinian people, especially in Gaza.”

Putin, who met the day prior with an Israeli-Russian citizen released from Hamas captivity as part of the earlier ceasefire deal, praised Qatar’s diplomatic efforts. “We know that Qatar is making very serious efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Unfortunately, the initiatives put forward, including by you, have not been implemented — peaceful people continue to die in Palestine, which is an absolute tragedy of today.”

He went on to underscore his long-standing position that any lasting peace can only be achieved through a two-state framework. “A long-term settlement can only be achieved on the basis of the UN resolution, and, first of all, in connection with the establishment of two states,” said Putin.

The original ceasefire deal followed over a year of ongoing conflict, which began on October 7, 2023, when Hamas launched a brutal surprise attack on Israel, killing approximately 1,200 people and kidnapping 251 others. The first stage of the agreement, which lasted 42 days, ended on March 2. Israel declined to proceed to the second phase, which would have required a full military withdrawal from Gaza, prompting the resumption of combat on March 18 with widespread airstrikes across the territory.

Neither Moscow nor Doha classifies Hamas as a terrorist group. Qatar, a key backer of Hamas that provides sanctuary to its senior leadership, worked with Egypt and the United States to broker the deal and continues to be involved in ongoing mediation efforts.

Meanwhile, reports have emerged accusing members of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s inner circle of receiving money from Doha to promote Qatar’s role as a peace facilitator, possibly to the detriment of Egypt, whose relationship with Hamas remains strained.

In an interview aired on the Christian network Daystar, Netanyahu addressed Qatar’s involvement in both the ceasefire and broader regional issues. “Qatar had recently helped us with… the temporary ceasefire, but they were hosting these Hamas terrorists.”

Netanyahu also voiced strong disapproval of Qatar’s financial influence on American universities and its sponsorship of Al Jazeera, which he claims fuels hostility against Israel and the U.S. “Unfortunately, Qatar was doing this,” said Netanyahu. “Al Jazeera, too, in Arabic, is promoting this anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism, which is weaved together.”

He called for a definitive stance from Qatar. “Qatar has to choose,” said Netanyahu. Quoting Israel’s new ambassador to Washington, Yechiel Leiter, he added: “You can’t fund the arsonists and the firefighters at the same time.”

“If that choice is made stark and clear, I think it will help everyone,” the premier said. “It will help everyone in the Middle East, everyone in the world, and it will help, also, get the facts straight.”

During Thursday’s remarks with Putin, Al-Thani also stated his desire to deepen ties between Qatar and Russia. He mentioned that Ahmed al-Sharaa, the newly installed Syrian leader backed by Qatar, shared this goal after taking power from the Assad regime late last year.

“A few days ago, President al-Sharaa was in Qatar, and we spoke with him about the historical and strategic relationship between Syria and Russia,” said Al-Thani. “He is keen on building a relationship between the two countries based on mutual respect.”

Al-Thani’s message comes at a delicate time for the Kremlin, as Russia seeks to preserve access to its military installations in Syria and maintain regional clout following Bashar al-Assad’s departure to Moscow.

Putin acknowledged the urgency of stabilizing Syria amid ongoing sectarian unrest. “We would like to do everything to ensure that Syria, firstly, remains a sovereign, independent and territorially integral state, and we would like to discuss with you the possibility of providing assistance to the Syrian people, including humanitarian assistance,” Putin told the emir. “There are many problems there: political, security, and purely economic.”

{Matzav.com}

Keith Siegel, who was held hostage by Hamas, shared new insights about his time in captivity during an interview on Thursday with Channel 12. He revealed that the terrorists tried to convince him and Matan Angrest, the soldier he was held with, to embrace Islam.

“There were attempts to convert us. According to them, whoever isn’t a Muslim goes to hell and only Muslims go to heaven. Matan spoke a lot about the longing and how he wants to be with his family more when he returns from captivity and less on the PlayStation,” Siegel recalled.

He continued, explaining that the terrorists sought information from Matan regarding his military duties. “I think they tried to get information out of Matan about his job. Matan felt threatened in this situation where they’re interrogating him, and he did everything not to reveal classified information. He told me about very difficult things he went through. I saw violence against Matan, physical and verbal violence.”

Siegel described the harsh conditions they endured, saying the hunger they experienced was very real and not just an expression. “Matan and I really starved. It’s not just some figure of speech. There were times that we really felt, both physically and mentally, that there’s a chance that we won’t get out of there alive at all, because of the different threats that there were – one was the lack of food and the daily starvation for a long time. It caused dizziness, lightheadedness, and weakness, and I’m sure he’s experiencing that until now,” he concluded.

Matan’s mother, Anat Angrest, spoke with Arutz Sheva-Israel National News last week following her appearance at a session of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.

“I came especially to the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee to speak about the abducted soldiers who were neglected in all the deals up until now,” Angrest states. “We are not ready to sit quietly. Even though they told us not to publicize the soldier issue, we are now putting the soldiers up front.”

She emphasized that her advocacy isn’t just for her own son. “You send soldiers to battle, they need to know that if G-d forbid they’ll be abducted or they’ll be in Matan’s position, the State of Israel would take care of them and won’t leave them behind.”

Anat addressed the decision to release videos showing Matan’s kidnapping and his time in captivity. “It’s part of the process we went through. We understood that if we continued sitting in silence, it would be easy for the State of Israel to leave our sons behind. For this silence, my Matan is paying a much higher price. It’s against our character and our behavior, but they don’t leave us any other choice.”

She spoke about the agony and powerlessness the families have been living with due to the prolonged uncertainty. “The fact is that Matan is still there, injured. I received an indication that the State of Israel is committed to him – yes, I see a commitment to soldiers with foreign citizenship, but the Israeli government did not include soldiers in any deal.”

Angrest described the moment she saw the disturbing video showing her son. “I tried not to be exposed to the difficult documentation; there’s more, but I tried to protect myself. As much as I try to remain hopeful that Matan survived and is coming home soon, it brings me back to thinking about how he was abducted and what he’s going through there.”

She also mentioned a conversation she had with IDF female observers who were also taken captive and encountered Matan. “The observers had a few run-ins with Matan there. They know exactly what he’s going through.”

Anat expressed disappointment with the Israeli leadership, particularly the Prime Minister. “During the meeting with Netanyahu, I got the feeling that he is not aware of Matan’s condition. I left so frustrated. I said that I left with a feeling that there is a lack of commitment to Matan.”

She believes that a deal to secure the hostages could have already been made. “I am almost sure that there’s a deal on the table, and the Prime Minister, for one reason or another, is not taking it. We know that for a year and a half already, there could have been deals to bring them all back, but they aren’t happening because the Prime Minister was not prepared to announce the end of the war. When there is a deal, I will not let it exclude soldiers and the deceased.”

When asked whether she supports a hostage deal even if it ends the war, she didn’t hesitate. “Ending the war is not a price, it’s an achievement. Returning the hostages is the immediate goal, its life and death. That’s what needs to be done, and that’s what needed to happen a long time ago.”

Looking ahead to the scheduled meeting between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump, she expressed a cautious sense of anticipation. “The US understands that this needs to end.”

She also spoke of the emotional toll the holiday season has taken. “We aren’t going into any holiday – there’s no such word ‘celebration’ for us. We will be at Hostages Square with other supportive citizens who are also unable to celebrate a holiday.”

{Matzav.com Israel}

The United States Space Force has released a comprehensive guide titled “Space Warfighting: A Framework for Planners”, offering military strategists a deep dive into the principles, methods, and strategic planning necessary to confront threats in the space domain — which is increasingly seen as a crucial arena for future conflicts.

This newly published doctrine outlines how the USSF aims to defend America’s assets in orbit and ensure the effectiveness of the Joint Force’s global military reach and strike capabilities. The document lays out objectives for near-term to long-term dominance in what it defines as “space-superiority.”

The Space Force characterizes “space superiority” as the ability to maintain operational freedom in space — choosing when and where to operate without major opposition, while denying that same freedom to adversaries.

According to the manual, achieving superiority may include targeting enemy satellites, infrastructure, or communication systems, while also addressing threats that emerge in other domains like land, air, sea, and cyberspace. “Space superiority may involve seeking out and destroying an enemy’s spacecraft, systems, and networks through measures designed to minimize the effectiveness of those systems, or countering enemy efforts in the other warfighting domains (land, maritime, air, and cyberspace),” the manual reads.

The framework emphasizes that control in space is a force multiplier that enhances military power in all other domains. “The ability to establish space superiority at the time and place of our choosing enables joint lethality in all domains,” it asserts.

Lt. Gen. Shawn Bratton, deputy chief of space operations, explained the broader purpose behind the publication, telling reporters, “This document is really intended … to introduce sort of a common framework, common lexicon that we can use in our training and in our education programs,” as reported by Defense One.

To lay out a path toward dominance in space, the Space Force delineates offensive and defensive methods across three primary mission areas: Orbital Warfare, Electromagnetic Warfare, and Cyberspace Warfare.

Offensive operations in space, according to the document, could include direct attacks in orbit, strikes launched from Earth, or interference with space-based communication systems. These tactics can involve jamming, hacking, or other means to “disrupt, deny, or degrade an enemy’s critical space links.”

On the defensive side, the framework describes both passive and active strategies. Passive defenses include early warning systems, deceptive practices, hardening of systems, dispersion, and redundancy. Active measures involve direct responses, including counterstrikes and efforts to neutralize enemy targeting systems.

The Space Force differentiates between types of superiority depending on how much freedom each side has in space. If both U.S. and adversary systems remain functional, or if neither can operate, this is considered contested space, especially when dealing with nations of similar capabilities — referred to as “peer and near-peer adversaries.” Such a scenario is labeled a “Very High Risk” situation for U.S. forces.

The framework explains that true dominance occurs when hostile forces can no longer effectively use or protect their space infrastructure and are incapable of providing support to their own military efforts. “General superiority of space is achieved when the enemy is no longer able to act in a meaningful or dangerous way against friendly celestial lines of communication, and it also means that the enemy is unable to adequately defend or control its own assets or deliver space effects in support of its own operations,” the document explains.

The guidance acknowledges that warfare in space will lean heavily on automation due to the unique characteristics of the environment — extreme distances, velocity, and a crowded orbital landscape. As a result, the framework outlines a move away from constant human oversight and toward reliance on “highly automated systems.”

Furthermore, the document stresses the vital connection between space and cyber infrastructure, noting that much of what occurs in orbit depends entirely on digital networks. It describes space as “almost entirely reliant on the network dimension.”

USSF Chief of Space Operations General B. Chance Saltzman concluded the document with a sobering warning: “Space superiority is not only a necessary precondition for Joint Force success but also something for which we must be prepared to fight.”

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump leveled sharp criticism at Harvard University on Thursday, accusing the school of misusing its tax-exempt status and labeling it “antisemitic” in response to its handling of anti-Israel demonstrations on campus. “I think Harvard is a disgrace. They’re obviously antisemitic, and all of a sudden they’re starting to behave,” Trump said during a media appearance.

Trump went on to condemn Harvard’s leadership and actions, referencing the widely criticized congressional testimony of the university’s former president. “But when you see what they were saying, what they were doing, when you see the way they took care of events, when you watch that woman, that horrendous president that ruined the image of Harvard, maybe permanently, in Congress…when you take a look at what happened there, it was horrific.”

He also touched on the university’s tax benefits, suggesting that such privileges were being exploited. “Tax-exempt status, I mean, it’s a privilege. It’s really a privilege, and it’s been abused by a lot more than Harvard, too. So we’ll see how that all works out,” Trump stated, adding that the legal process is still underway. “I don’t think they’ve made a final ruling. I don’t believe they’ve made a final ruling, but it’s something that these schools really have to be very, very careful with.”

Trump’s remarks come just after reports emerged that the Internal Revenue Service may soon revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt designation. According to sources familiar with the discussions, a decision is likely forthcoming amid mounting friction between the administration and the university over its resistance to federal directives involving governance and hiring.

This development follows the Trump administration’s freeze of over $2 billion in federal aid to Harvard, citing its mishandling of antisemitic incidents on campus. The university has responded by arguing that, as a private institution, it is entitled to autonomy under the U.S. Constitution.

In a further escalation, the administration recently delivered a firm warning to Harvard, insisting on sweeping reforms as a condition for retaining access to an estimated $9 billion in federal research grants and funding streams.

Harvard has faced mounting criticism since the Hamas terror attacks on October 7, 2023, and the subsequent conflict in Gaza. The school has struggled to manage the surge in anti-Israel sentiment, prompting accusations of failing to combat antisemitism on its campus.

Just days after the October 7 massacre, 34 student groups at Harvard issued a statement holding Israel responsible for the attack—a move that drew widespread condemnation.

Later, Harvard President Claudine Gay came under intense scrutiny after her testimony alongside MIT President Sally Kornbluth and University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill at a congressional hearing focused on antisemitism in higher education.

Each of the university leaders declined to offer clear denunciations of antisemitic rhetoric or explicit calls for violence against Jews when questioned by Rep. Elise Stefanik. Gay eventually stepped down from her position as head of Harvard University.

{Matzav.com}

Hamas has turned down Israel’s latest proposal for a partial agreement involving hostages held in Gaza. Khalil al-Hayya, who is leading the group’s negotiation efforts, accused Prime Minister Netanyahu of presenting terms that were “impossible” to meet, saying, “Netanyahu set impossible conditions for a deal that does not lead to the end of the war or full withdrawal. He and his government violated the agreement before its first phase ended.”

Al-Hayya emphasized that Hamas is ready to negotiate seriously, but only under specific conditions. “We are prepared to immediately hold true negotiations for the release of the captives that we hold in return for an agreed-upon number of prisoners being held by the occupation. The occupation in return must totally stop the war and totally withdraw from the Gaza Strip,” he stated.

Earlier this week, Lebanon’s Al-Mayadeen network, known for its ties to Hezbollah, released what it claimed were the specifics of Israel’s offer that had been submitted to Hamas negotiators in Cairo.

The proposal included a 45-day halt in fighting in exchange for the release of nine hostages believed to be alive and six who are presumed dead. This deal reportedly hinges on a full disarmament of the Gaza Strip.

On the second day of the arrangement, Hamas would free five additional living hostages. In return, Israel would release 66 prisoners serving life sentences and 611 other detainees from Gaza. The exchange was to be carried out discreetly, without the kind of public spectacle Hamas orchestrated during earlier hostage releases in January.

The alleged deal also outlined a jointly approved mechanism for distributing humanitarian assistance, aiming to ensure the supplies go directly to civilians rather than being seized by Hamas—something that has been a persistent issue with aid deliveries throughout the conflict.

Once those five hostages are released, humanitarian shipments would begin entering Gaza, along with materials and resources to construct temporary shelters for displaced residents. At the same time, the IDF would begin repositioning its forces in northern Gaza and near Rafah.

Despite the offer, Hamas remains firm in its refusal to surrender its weapons and continues to demand that the war conclude entirely on its own conditions.

{Matzav.com Israel}

The U.S. Supreme Court announced Thursday that it will take up a critical case next month regarding President Donald Trump’s attempt to enforce a sweeping executive order aimed at ending automatic birthright citizenship—a signature initiative of his aggressive immigration agenda.

Rather than immediately weighing in on the administration’s push to curb three sweeping injunctions issued in Washington state, Massachusetts, and Maryland, the justices said they will postpone any ruling on those injunctions until after oral arguments, which are scheduled for May 15.

The executive order, signed by Trump upon returning to office on January 20, directs all federal agencies to deny citizenship recognition to children born on U.S. soil unless at least one parent is either a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident.

Legal challenges swiftly followed. A coalition consisting of 22 Democrat attorneys general, immigrant advocacy organizations, and several pregnant women contend that the directive contravenes the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to individuals born in the U.S.

That portion of the 14th Amendment clearly states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

However, the Trump administration maintains that this constitutional clause does not apply universally—especially not to children born to individuals who are in the country illegally, or to those lawfully present on a temporary basis, like students or foreign workers.

U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, arguing on behalf of the administration, wrote that the policy “reflects the original meaning, historical understanding and proper scope of the Citizenship Clause.”

Sauer argued that offering citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil fuels illegal immigration and so-called “birth tourism,” wherein foreigners travel to America specifically to give birth and obtain citizenship for their children.

The most cited precedent on the matter is an 1898 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which has widely been interpreted to mean that birthright citizenship applies even when parents are not U.S. citizens.

But according to the Justice Department, that ruling was more limited than commonly understood and only applied to cases where the parents maintained a “permanent domicile and residence in the United States.”

The legal battle over birthright citizenship has also become a vehicle for the Trump administration to challenge the broader use of nationwide—or “universal”—injunctions issued by federal judges, which have blocked multiple executive actions across the board.

Unlike rulings that only affect the plaintiffs in a case, universal injunctions halt the implementation of a policy for everyone, regardless of their involvement in the lawsuit.

Supporters of such injunctions view them as vital tools to rein in executive excess, especially when a president enacts policies that are legally questionable. Critics argue that district judges overstep their authority and introduce partisan bias into judicial decisions.

In his written brief, Sauer lamented that “a small subset of federal district courts tars the entire judiciary with the appearance of political activism,” noting that 28 such injunctions were issued against Trump’s administration during just two months—February and March.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs criticized the administration for focusing on technical legal arguments about the breadth of the court rulings, rather than addressing the core constitutional issues raised by Trump’s policy.

Washington state, one of the four states challenging the order, urged the high court to dismiss the administration’s attempt to limit the scope of the injunctions, saying the policy is “flagrantly unconstitutional,” according to its court filing.

The state’s legal brief added: “Recognizing that the citizenship stripping order is impossible to defend on the merits, the federal government frames its application as an opportunity to address the permissibility of nationwide injunctions.”

Sauer, in response, argued that the states involved in the lawsuit lack the necessary legal basis to advocate for the individual rights supposedly protected by the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.

In the Washington case, filed by the Democrat-controlled states of Washington, Oregon, Illinois, and Arizona, along with several pregnant women, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour issued an injunction on February 6, freezing Trump’s directive.

During a hearing, Judge Coughenour, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, called the birthright citizenship order “blatantly unconstitutional.”

On February 19, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco declined to lift the injunction, allowing it to remain in place pending further proceedings.

{Matzav.com}

Joe Biden experienced yet another public stumble during an unannounced visit to Harvard University on Wednesday, when he made a surprise stop that included a series of awkward moments—one of which involved dropping his ice cream bar on the ground and confusing Ukraine with Iraq.

Biden, 82, sat down with about 50 students at the Harvard Institute of Politics, but the closed-door conversation was overshadowed by familiar missteps that echoed the blunders of his failed 2024 campaign, as reported by the Harvard Crimson.

At one point, while addressing Russia’s ongoing war against Ukraine, Biden mistakenly called the country “Iraq,” prompting a quick correction from Mike Donilon, his longtime adviser and currently a fellow at the Institute.

Adding to the awkwardness, Biden tried to enjoy an ice cream bar after the discussion but ended up biting into it just as it melted and fell to the floor, the student outlet reported.

In his comments to the students, Biden applauded Harvard’s resistance to pressure from the Trump administration, which had demanded that the school eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and tighten the vetting of foreign applicants to block those with anti-American leanings—measures aimed at addressing rising antisemitism on campus.

In response to Harvard’s defiance, the administration moved to suspend $2.2 billion in long-term grants and $60 million in ongoing contracts with the university.

“Harvard stepped up in a way no one else has. You should be really thankful,” Biden told the students during his talk.

Outside the event, word of Biden’s visit sparked a protest from pro-Palestinian activists, who gathered near the building, beating drums and chanting, “Biden, Biden, you can’t hide. You’re committing genocide,” according to The Crimson.

Despite the disruptions, some attendees took the opportunity to snap selfies with Biden. One student shared a photo online, writing, “Incredible day to meet Joe Biden.”

{Matzav.com}

רבי מיילך בידרמן באשדודצילום: יוסי לוי רבי מיילך בידרמן באשדודצילום: יוסי לוי רבי מיילך בידרמן באשדודצילום: יוסי לוי רבי מיילך בידרמן באשדודצילום: יוסי לוי רבי מיילך בידרמן באשדודצילום: יוסי לוי רבי מיילך בידרמן באשדודצילום: יוסי לוי רבי מיילך בידרמן באשדודצילום: יוסי לוי רבי מיילך בידרמן באשדודצילום: יוסי לוי רבי מיילך בידרמן באשדודצילום: יוסי לוי רבי מיילך בידרמן באשדודצילום: יוסי לוי רבי מיילך בידרמן באשדודצילום: יוסי לוי רבי מיילך בידרמן באשדודצילום: יוסי לוי רבי מיילך בידרמן באשדודצילום: יוסי לוי רבי מיילך בידרמן באשדודצילום: יוסי לוי רבי מיילך בידרמן באשדודצילום: יוסי לוי רבי מיילך בידרמן באשדודצילום: יוסי לוי רבי מיילך בידרמן באשדודצילום: יוסי לוי רבי מיילך בידרמן באשדודצילום: יוסי לוי רבי מיילך בידרמן באשדודצילום: יוסי לוי

JPMorgan Chase is cracking down on account holders it claims defrauded the bank by exploiting a viral technical loophole known as the “infinite money glitch,” which gained widespread attention on TikTok last year.

The nation’s largest bank, under the leadership of Jamie Dimon, initially began filing legal action in October against customers who allegedly abused the system flaw in August, with some reportedly walking away with tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The glitch in question enabled users to deposit large checks and immediately access the full amount, even though the checks would eventually be returned for insufficient funds.

Now, JPMorgan is broadening its legal campaign by targeting those accused of taking less than $75,000. The bank has recently submitted new lawsuits across several U.S. jurisdictions, according to a recent report.

One such lawsuit, cited by CNBC, alleges: “On August 29, 2024, a masked man deposited a check in Defendant’s Chase bank account in the amount of $73,000.00.”

CNBC reports that while the check was rejected six days later, the individual managed to withdraw $82,500 in multiple transactions at two different Chase branches before the funds were flagged.

According to the same lawsuit, the customer still owes Chase $57,847.69 and has not responded to multiple demands from the bank to return the money.

Additional fraud suits have been launched in courts located in Miami, the Bronx, and two counties in Texas, CNBC added.

A Chase spokesperson commented, “We’re still investigating cases of fraud and cooperating with law enforcement—and we’ll do that for as long as it takes to hold fraudsters accountable.”

A person familiar with the situation told The NY Post that Chase has also issued repayment demand letters to approximately 1,000 individuals since October.

Though most banks do allow limited access to deposited check funds before they officially clear, deliberately exploiting this process is considered check fraud—a federal crime in the United States.

In contrast to U.S. banking norms, paper checks are nearly obsolete in much of Europe. Countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands have phased them out entirely.

Despite growing adoption of digital payment methods like ApplePay, checks are still widely used in America as a preferred form of payment.

{Matzav.com}

Mrs. Rivky Kogan, nee Spielman, the Chabad Shlucha in the United Arab Emirates, welcomed a baby girl during Chol Hamoed, offering a moment of joy in the midst of a deeply painful year.

Just five months ago, her husband, Rabbi Zvi Kogan Hy”d, fell victim to a vicious act of terror. In November 2024, Arab terrorists kidnapped and savagely murdered him.

Rabbi Kogan, 28, was running the Rimon kosher grocery store in Dubai when the attack occurred. The perpetrators—three Muslim men from Uzbekistan—were apprehended and ultimately sentenced to death and executed. A fourth individual involved received a life sentence.

Originally from Yerushalayim , Rabbi Kogan was educated in Litvishe yeshivos before serving in the IDF. He married Rivky in 2022. She hails from Crown Heights and is the niece of Rabbi Gabi Holtzberg Hy”d, the Chabad Shliach who was murdered during the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks.

This baby girl is the couple’s first child, born posthumously to Rabbi Kogan. She is a source of comfort to her grandparents: R’ Shmuel and Devorah Spielman in Crown Heights, and Rabbi Alexander Sender and Etel Kogan in Yerushalayim.

Chief Rabbi of the UAE Rabbi Levi Duchman  expressed his sentiments in a public statement: “We extend a heartfelt Mazal Tov to Rivky Kogan on the birth of her baby girl. We join the Kogan and Spielman families and all Am Yisroel in celebrating this special moment of simcha. This precious baby is a special continuation of her beloved father, who was brutally murdered, Reb Zvi Hakohen Kogan Hy”d, and whose life’s mission continues to inspire us all. May we share only simcha and bracha, and may this young girl bring much joy, comfort, and light to her family and to all Am Yisroel.”

{Matzav.com}

Key members of Israel’s opposition reacted Thursday to a New York Times report claiming that President Donald Trump stepped in to stop Israel from launching a strike against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

Yair Lapid, head of the opposition, posted on X/Twitter that back in October he had suggested targeting Iran’s oil industry.

“Destroying Iran’s oil industry would have caused its economy to collapse and would have ultimately brought down the regime. Netanyahu was afraid, so he prevented the move,” Lapid wrote.

Benny Gantz, who leads the National Unity party, echoed the urgency of neutralizing Iran’s nuclear ambitions in his own message on X.

“Israel must, and can, remove the prospect of Iranian nuclear capabilities,” Gantz said. He added, “The Iranian regime is an expert at stalling,” and emphasized the need for strong cooperation with Washington: “Let us coordinate closely with our great ally, the US. It is time to change the Middle East.”

Naftali Bennett, Israel’s former prime minister and a current political figure, also weighed in on the article and broader issue.

“The only deal worth making with Iran is one that fully and permanently dismantles its nuclear program, ends all Iranian terrorism, and fully stops it from developing ballistic missiles,” Bennett wrote.

He added, “Under President Trump’s leadership, the US has amassed for itself unprecedented leverage.”

“At this moment, America is strong while the regime and its proxies are temporarily weaker than ever, almost defenseless,” he said.

“It would be a historic miss to allow Iran to regroup and threaten us—the US, Israel and the rest of the world—again,” he concluded.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump intensified his criticism of Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell on Thursday, calling for his removal amid frustration over what he sees as the Fed’s reluctance to lower interest rates.

Posting on Truth Social, Trump lashed out: “Powell’s termination cannot come fast enough,” just a day after Powell made clear that the central bank would stay the course and not rush to cut rates.

Speaking at an Economic Club of Chicago event, Powell—who was originally chosen for the role by Trump—voiced concerns that increased tariffs could drive inflation higher and harm the broader economy.

In his online rant, Trump fumed: “‘Too Late’ Jerome Powell of the Fed, who is always TOO LATE AND WRONG, yesterday issued a report which was another, and typical, complete ‘mess!’”

Later that day, Trump extended his attack during a meeting at the White House with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.

“The Fed really owes it to the American people to get interest rates down. That’s the only thing he’s good for,” Trump stated. “I am not happy with him. If I want him out of there he’ll be out real fast believe me.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, Trump has been discussing the possibility of firing Powell in private for several months. These conversations reportedly included former Federal Reserve Governor Kevin Warsh, whom Trump is considering as a potential successor.

However, Warsh is said to have advised Trump against ousting Powell, urging that the Fed chief should be allowed to finish his term undisturbed, according to sources cited by the Journal.

The legality of removing Powell remains murky, as Fed chairs are nominated by the president but must also be confirmed by the Senate, and they traditionally serve full terms.

A Supreme Court case regarding a president’s authority to dismiss members of independent agencies could potentially affect the Fed as well, though Powell said Wednesday he believes that any ruling would not disrupt the Fed’s autonomy in setting monetary policy—a principle that enjoys widespread bipartisan backing.

Despite Trump’s claim that Powell would step aside if asked, Powell has made it clear that he has no intention of resigning before his term ends in May 2026.

The situation has become serious enough that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has reportedly advised officials within the administration to tread carefully, warning that attempting to oust Powell could send shockwaves through financial markets, according to Politico.

“A sudden crystallization of the threat to Fed independence would both intensify market stress and shift it in more of a stagflationary direction with a sharp increase in tail risk,” wrote Krishna Guha, vice chair of Evercore ISI, in a market note.

During his Chicago appearance, Powell urged a cautious approach when it comes to interest rates, emphasizing the need for more clarity on the administration’s trade policies before making further monetary moves.

The Fed’s main interest rate currently stands at 4.25% to 4.50%, unchanged since December after a series of rate cuts last year.

Speaking to Fox Business on Thursday, New York Fed President John Williams remarked, “I don’t see any need to change the setting of the fed funds rate anytime soon…It’s really about collecting information, understanding better what’s happening in the economy during the rest of this year, understanding kind of how the uncertainty plays out.”

“I think we have a period of higher inflation this year and a slower growth path for this year relative to last year. So that’s a combination you have to think carefully about,” Williams added.

Trump’s first term was marked by frequent clashes with Powell, whom he often denounced publicly, at one point calling him an “enemy” and mocking Federal Reserve officials as “boneheads.”

Their tensions escalated as the Fed resisted Trump’s push for aggressive rate cuts, which he viewed as necessary to fuel economic expansion.

Powell, who previously worked in private equity, was renominated to his current position by Joe Biden in 2022.

{Matzav.com}

Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is shaping up to be the leading contender to head the party’s 2028 presidential ticket—if she decides to enter the race, according to political analyst Nate Silver.

Silver offered his take during a “2028 Democratic primary draft” discussion on his “Silver Bulletin” Substack, where he was joined by “GD Politics” podcast host Galen Druke. Druke beat Silver to the punch by naming Ocasio-Cortez as his top pick for the nomination.

“That was going to be my … first pick!” Silver exclaimed after Druke claimed Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) as his top choice.

Druke highlighted findings from a Yale University survey that showed Ocasio-Cortez scoring one of the strongest favorability margins among Democratic voters, with a net +60 rating.

In the same survey, Ocasio-Cortez placed second in a theoretical 2028 Democratic primary field, trailing only Kamala Harris.

“I think there’s a lot of points in her favor at this very moment,” Druke said. “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has broad appeal across the Democratic Party.”

“I think equally important is the fact that she has very fervent support. I think a lot of people are gonna run in 2028 and it’s going to be a contest for attention and getting those sort of people who might be in your boat to turn out and stay with you through thick and thin.”

Silver responded by saying, “I agree with everything” Druke said, though he added that it’s far from certain that she’ll run, that many things could change between now and 2028, and that Democrats may eventually question whether she can win a general election.

Druke, however, expressed greater certainty that Ocasio-Cortez would enter the race, pointing to her recent national tour with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) under the banner of the “Fighting Oligarchy Tour.”

Silver also mentioned that Ocasio-Cortez was holding her own in polls in a hypothetical 2028 matchup against Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), even though, as he put it, “New York Democrats are actually a pretty moderate bloc.” He further described her as “canny” and “charismatic.”

With Ocasio-Cortez off the board, Silver turned to Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro as his first pick.

“In the past three nomination races … you kind of have this compromise candidate where you have the moderates and you have the progressives and you get kind of somewhere in the middle,” Silver explained. “If you’re not going to pick an AOC … then maybe go to someone who’s fully moderate, ‘electable.’”

Silver then went on to select a string of figures including Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, ex-New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), billionaire Mark Cuban, and Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.).

Druke followed his Ocasio-Cortez pick by drafting Vice President Harris, then continued with a list that included former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Rubin Gallego (D-Ariz.), Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, and Sanders.

The pair critiqued each other’s picks, with Druke implying Booker has always received more hype than he’s deserved, while Silver took aim at Harris’ performance in the 2024 race, saying she made “a lot of tactical errors” that raised doubts about her political savvy.

“Kamala Harris has universal name recognition,” Druke said. “I think that she could go some way to clear the field if she decided early to get in. I think we don’t yet know how big of an electoral flop she is.”

“We saw with Joe Biden, he was on the campaign in 2019, right? It was not debate performances, it was not like [his] ability to give a rousing speech or anything like that got him the nomination,” he continued. “It was kind of just outliving everyone else and being a consensus candidate.”

At present, Harris is reportedly weighing whether to mount a campaign for California governor in 2026 or to go straight for the White House two years later.

One of the pivotal moments that contributed to Biden stepping aside and Harris becoming the Democratic nominee in 2024 was an op-ed from actor George Clooney in The New York Times, which questioned the president’s mental sharpness.

Clooney has floated the idea that Wes Moore could become the “levitating above” candidate in the field of 2028 Democratic hopefuls—someone who stands out from the crowd.

Back in the previous election cycle, Silver famously said his “gut says Donald Trump” would win the presidency, though his forecasting models showed the race as essentially even. He had also projected that President Trump was likely to lose both the 2016 and 2020 elections.

Silver rose to fame during the 2008 election when he accurately predicted the outcome in 49 out of 50 states.

{Matzav.com}

[COMMUNICATED]

A federal judge has determined that Google unlawfully controls two key segments of the digital advertising technology market, dealing a major antitrust blow to the tech powerhouse — one that could lead to a dramatic restructuring of its digital ad business.

Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled on Thursday that Google’s grip on the publisher ad server space and the ad exchange platform — which links advertisers to publishers — breaches federal antitrust law under the Sherman Act.

“Google further entrenched its monopoly power by imposing anticompetitive practices on its customers and eliminating desirable product features,” Brinkema wrote.

She went on to say, “In addition to depriving rivals of the ability to compete, this exclusionary conduct substantially harmed Google’s publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web.”

Following the decision, Alphabet — Google’s parent company — saw its shares dip 1.2%, trading at $153.64 on Thursday.

Antitrust expert Mike Davis, who serves as an adviser to President Trump and leads the Internet Accountability Project, said this ruling puts a breakup of Google’s ad business firmly on the table.

The Justice Department has pushed for the court to mandate that Google divest some of its digital advertising operations, particularly Google Ad Manager, which encompasses both its ad-serving tools and its ad exchange platform.

“Google made its trillions by monopolizing the online advertising market, then Google uses its market power to crush competition, shutter small businesses and cancel conservatives,” Davis said. “That’s coming to an end.”

Danielle Coffey, president and CEO of the News/Media Alliance — a nonprofit representing over 2,200 publishers including The Post — called the ruling a major milestone for digital media.

“The news media industry hails the court’s decision to again hold Google accountable for decades of abuse of its market power,” Coffey said. “Google’s monopolistic tactics—this time in the advertising market—have starved content creators of the revenues they deserve and need to sustain quality journalism.”

However, Judge Brinkema ruled that the DOJ didn’t provide enough evidence to show that Google monopolizes a third area — the advertiser ad network market. That portion of the case was dismissed after the three-week bench trial, which began in 2023 and was backed by a group of U.S. states.

In response, Google declared a partial win and said it would challenge the judge’s findings on the other fronts.

“We won half of this case and we will appeal the other half,” said Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, in a statement.

“We disagree with the Court’s decision regarding our publisher tools. Publishers have many options and they choose Google because our ad tech tools are simple, affordable and effective,” Mulholland added.

Advocacy groups that monitor tech companies praised the ruling, calling it a breakthrough for accountability in the digital advertising industry.

“This ruling is an unequivocal win for the American people that will help lower prices, increase competition, and lead to a better internet for everyone,” said Sacha Howarth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project.

Government lawyers argued throughout the trial that Google has misused its dominant position to harm both publishers and advertisers, with some experts saying the company collects up to 35% of every dollar spent on ads through its platform.

Evidence presented included a statement from a Google executive back in 2009 who said the company’s aim in digital advertising was to “crush” its competition.

Google’s legal team countered by claiming that the DOJ’s case was based on a dated understanding of the internet and cautioned that federal intervention might produce unintended negative consequences.

Judge Brinkema noted that a second trial would be needed to decide on the best course of action to dismantle Google’s hold on the digital ad sector.

This isn’t the only courtroom setback for Google. In a different case last year, a judge found the company illegally monopolized the online search engine space.

That case is moving into its remedies phase starting Monday, where the government is expected to ask for measures that could include divesting the Chrome web browser.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump’s administration is set to ask a federal appeals court on Thursday to halt a lower court’s decision that overturned White House restrictions on the Associated Press, which were imposed after the agency refused to adopt the administration’s preferred terminology for the Gulf of Mexico.

The administration argues that the ruling—which requires AP reporters to be granted entry to White House press events—undermines the president’s discretion in determining who may access secure areas. While the appeal proceeds, the White House is seeking to pause the enforcement of the order.

In February, the White House began curbing the AP’s access to President Trump after the outlet continued to refer to the body of water as the Gulf of Mexico, despite Trump’s directive to rename it the Gulf of America.

This legal battle has become a focal point in the ongoing friction between the Trump administration and the media, as the White House attempts to tighten its control over which reporters are permitted to pose questions and provide immediate coverage of the president’s remarks.

Attorneys representing the AP accused the administration on Wednesday of failing to comply with the court’s directive, saying the White House has continued excluding its reporters from certain events and has also scaled back access for other wire services, including Reuters and Bloomberg.

The administration maintains that the AP is not entitled to what it describes as “special access” to the president, insisting that press credentials are not guaranteed for any particular outlet.

On April 8, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden—who was appointed by Trump—issued a temporary injunction ordering the administration to admit AP journalists to events that are open to comparable media outlets. This includes access to the Oval Office, Air Force One, and other designated areas within the White House, pending the outcome of the case.

The AP filed suit against three senior aides to Trump, claiming that the access restrictions were designed to pressure the agency into adopting government-approved language, thus impeding its journalistic function.

Judge McFadden concluded that the administration’s actions were a form of retaliation against the AP’s editorial choices and likely ran afoul of the First Amendment’s free speech protections.

The appeal will be heard by a three-judge panel consisting of Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao—both appointed by Trump—and Cornelia Pillard, who was nominated by President Barack Obama.

According to the AP, and as Judge McFadden concurred, the White House targeted the agency in part because of its widely used stylebook, which serves as a reference for many news organizations across the United States.

In that stylebook, the AP notes that the term Gulf of Mexico has been in use for over four centuries and affirms that, as an international news service, it will continue to use the historical name while also acknowledging the new term proposed by Trump.

{Matzav.com}

Senator Bernie Sanders, who has been vocal about his opposition to America’s wealthiest individuals during his “Fighting Oligarchy” tour alongside Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has been relying on private air travel to get from stop to stop, according to campaign finance records.

Federal Election Commission filings released this week show that Sanders’ main campaign arm, Friends of Bernie Sanders, spent $221,723 on private jet charters during the first quarter of 2024, according to a report Thursday by The Washington Free Beacon.

The first of these payments was made just ahead of the tour’s kickoff in February, the filings reveal.

Speaking in California on Tuesday, Sanders declared, “we will not accept a rigged economy where working people struggle while billionaires become richer,” emphasizing the need for an economic system that supports “working people, not just [Elon] Musk and the billionaire class.”

While Sanders once targeted both millionaires and billionaires in his speeches, he shifted focus solely to billionaires after joining the ranks of millionaires shortly before his 2020 presidential campaign.

Michael Bloomberg, who competed against Sanders during the 2020 Democratic primary, took a jab at him during a debate, highlighting the senator’s wealth and lifestyle. “The best known socialist in the country happens to be a millionaire with three houses,” said Bloomberg, who has a personal fortune nearing $105 billion.

According to Tuesday’s financial disclosures, the Friends of Bernie Sanders committee worked with three private jet firms: Cirrus Aviation Services, N-Jet, and Ventura Jets. Those three vendors made up about 75% of the campaign’s total travel-related expenses for the first quarter of the year.

The filings also show that the campaign spent $63,380 on commercial airfare, nearly $41,000 on hotel accommodations, and $248,245 on event-related production costs.

The “Fighting Oligarchy” tour began on February 22 in Nebraska and has since traveled through several key states including Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Montana, and California. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, who has been introducing Sanders at each stop, was seen flying first class to a rally in Las Vegas last month.

{Matzav.com}

Court filings have confirmed that the illegal immigrant at the center of a heated deportation dispute had an official rank and nickname within the violent MS-13 gang.

The Trump administration maintains that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, apprehended in Maryland and later deported to El Salvador, was an active member of MS-13. His removal occurred despite an immigration judge’s order blocking deportation.

Newly disclosed records identify Abrego Garcia as having held the gang rank of “Chequeo” and going by the street name “Chele” within MS-13’s hierarchy.

MS-13—short for Mara Salvatrucha—originated in Los Angeles during the 1980s as a means of protecting Salvadoran immigrants from rival gangs. The Department of Justice has described the group as “well-organized and is heavily involved in lucrative illegal enterprises, being notorious for its use of violence to achieve its objectives.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi took to social media on Wednesday to share evidence tied to a 2019 incident in Maryland, where Abrego Garcia was found in the company of confirmed MS-13 members in a Home Depot parking lot.

A Hyattsville City Police Department report, citing a credible informant, identified Abrego Garcia as a known MS-13 associate affiliated with the gang’s Western cliques. The source confirmed his rank as “Chequeo” and his alias as “Chele.”

According to the report, law enforcement officers observed Abrego Garcia wearing clothing commonly linked with gang culture, including a Chicago Bulls cap and a sweatshirt featuring images of U.S. presidents with rolls of money covering their eyes, ears, and mouths.

“The meaning of the clothing is to represent ‘ver, oir y callar’ or ‘see no evil, hear no evil and say no evil,’” the report stated.

The document added that “Wearing the Chicago Bulls hat represents that they are a member in good standing with the MS-13.”

During a Wednesday press briefing where she also announced a lawsuit against the state of Maine, Bondi acknowledged that a procedural step had been skipped prior to the deportation. Nevertheless, she was adamant that Abrego Garcia would not be allowed to return.

“He is an illegal alien who has been living illegally in our country from El Salvador. ICE testified, an immigration judge ruled he was a member of MS-13. An appellate judge ruled he was a member of MS-13. Hard stop,” Bondi told reporters. “He should not be in our country.”

Also on Wednesday, the Trump administration pointed to prior domestic violence charges against Abrego Garcia, while pushing back on what it described as sympathetic coverage from the mainstream media and progressive lawmakers defending the deported individual.

{Matzav.com}