Matzav

Millions of Americans will once again be forced to turn their clocks back an hour next month after a congressional effort to permanently eliminate the twice-yearly time changes stalled in the Senate, despite overwhelming approval in the House of Representatives and strong backing from President Donald Trump.

Daylight saving time is scheduled to end on Sunday, November 1, 2026, at 2 a.m., when clocks will move backward one hour to 1 a.m., giving Americans an additional hour of sleep while bringing earlier sunsets and darker evenings for the months ahead.

The change will take place despite a major legislative push in Washington to make daylight saving time permanent, which would eliminate the longstanding practice of changing clocks every spring and fall.

In July, the House passed the Sunshine Protection Act by a bipartisan vote of 308 to 117, raising hopes that the United States was finally approaching the end of its twice-annual clock adjustments.

However, the legislation has encountered substantial opposition in the Senate, where lawmakers adjourned without bringing the measure to a vote before the November 3 midterm elections.

With senators not scheduled to return until after Election Day, there is virtually no possibility that the legislation will take effect before this year’s scheduled clock change.

The proposal, introduced in the House by Republican Rep. Vern Buchanan of Florida, would establish daylight saving time as the permanent national standard, allowing Americans to retain the additional hour of evening daylight throughout the winter.

Under the legislation, states that already observe standard time year-round would be permitted to continue doing so, while other states would no longer have to adjust their clocks twice annually.

President Trump has become one of the most prominent advocates for the change, repeatedly arguing that the current system is outdated, disruptive and unnecessarily costly.

In a recent Truth Social post, Trump described the practice of changing clocks twice a year as “ridiculous” and said it “costs our country a fortune, is bad for crime, stress on people, sports, and just about everything else you can imagine.”

“People are sick and tired of having to change their Clocks twice a year,” Trump wrote. “This is an issue that Republicans, Democrats, and Independents can unite behind!”

Despite the president’s lobbying, several Republican senators remain opposed to permanent daylight saving time, warning that the change would create serious problems during winter mornings.

Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas has emerged as a leading opponent, arguing that maintaining daylight saving time throughout the year would force millions of Americans, particularly schoolchildren, to begin their days in darkness.

Trump publicly criticized Cotton earlier this month and urged Arkansas residents to pressure their senator into supporting the legislation, even sharing what appeared to be Cotton’s personal cellphone number.

Other lawmakers have expressed similar reservations, arguing that the benefits of additional evening sunlight must be weighed against the consequences of significantly later sunrises during the winter.

Sen. John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, offered a particularly pessimistic assessment of the bill’s prospects.

“It’s dead as disco,” Kennedy told Reuters.

“My sense is it would have trouble passing … I don’t think the leader is going to bring it up.”

Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, one of the legislation’s leading Senate supporters, has nevertheless expressed confidence that the measure could eventually win approval.

Supporters argue that eliminating seasonal clock changes would provide greater consistency for businesses, families and schools while allowing Americans to enjoy more daylight after work and school.

They contend that brighter evenings could encourage outdoor activities, benefit restaurants and tourism businesses, and potentially reduce certain types of accidents and criminal activity.

Rep. Gus Bilirakis, a Florida Republican who supports the legislation, has argued that permanent daylight saving time would be particularly beneficial to states whose economies depend heavily on tourism.

“In a state like Florida, my home state of Florida, where tourism is a cornerstone of our economy, having more predictable daylight hours is a practical improvement that benefits workers, businesses, and visitors alike,” Bilirakis said during congressional debate in July.

Opponents counter that the legislation would shift daylight away from the early morning hours, creating conditions in which children would wait for school buses and commuters would travel to work before sunrise.

In some northern and western portions of American time zones, permanent daylight saving time could push winter sunrises close to 9 a.m.

“Millions of Americans will wake up during the winter months in complete darkness with the sun not rising until long after people get up and travel to school or work or have to go about their days,” Democratic Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon of Pennsylvania warned.

The debate has also divided health experts. Many sleep researchers support eliminating the twice-yearly clock changes but favor permanent standard time rather than permanent daylight saving time, arguing that morning sunlight is important for regulating the body’s internal clock.

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine has previously endorsed permanent standard time as the arrangement most closely aligned with natural sleep and wake cycles.

The United States has experimented with permanent daylight saving time before, with controversial results.

During the energy crisis of the 1970s, Congress approved year-round daylight saving time in an effort to reduce energy consumption.

However, public support declined after families complained about children traveling to school in darkness, and Congress reversed the arrangement in 1974.

An earlier attempt to make daylight saving time permanent also advanced in Congress in 2022, when the Senate approved the Sunshine Protection Act without opposition through a unanimous-consent procedure.

That measure ultimately died after the House failed to take it up, illustrating the difficulty of reaching agreement even on an issue that has attracted bipartisan support.

Under current federal law, daylight saving time begins on the second Sunday in March and ends on the first Sunday in November.

The modern system was standardized under the Uniform Time Act of 1966, although Congress has modified the dates several times over the decades.

The current schedule, established in 2007, places Americans on daylight saving time for approximately eight months each year, with standard time observed during the remaining four months.

Not every part of the United States participates in the seasonal adjustments.

Hawaii and most of Arizona remain on standard time throughout the year, as do Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

The Navajo Nation, which extends into portions of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah, does observe daylight saving time.

Numerous state legislatures have approved or considered measures supporting permanent daylight saving time, but federal law generally prevents states from adopting that arrangement independently without congressional authorization.

States may choose to remain on standard time year-round, but they cannot unilaterally establish permanent daylight saving time under the existing federal system.

For now, the stalled legislation means Americans in most of the country will continue following the familiar schedule.

Clocks will move back one hour at 2 a.m. on Sunday, November 1, 2026, and daylight saving time is scheduled to return on Sunday, March 14, 2027.

The Sunshine Protection Act remains pending in the Senate, where lawmakers will have another opportunity to consider it after the midterm elections. Whether the measure can overcome opposition from senators concerned about dark winter mornings remains unresolved.

{Matzav.com}

In a powerful declaration during a meeting at his home in Yerushalayim, Rav Moshe Sternbuch sharply criticized the practice of referring to Jews who have returned to Torah observance as baalei teshuvah, insisting that such individuals must be regarded as full and equal members of the Torah community, without any distinction whatsoever.

Rav Sternbuch made the remarks during a visit last week by Rav Yaakov Dovid Nakash, the rov of the Keter Torah community in Mexico, one of the country’s most prominent Torah communities.

The meeting took place at Rav Sternbuch’s residence in the Har Nof neighborhood of Yerushalayim, where the two rabbonim discussed the condition of Jewish communities throughout the world, the continued growth of Torah life, and the remarkable movement of Jews returning to their heritage.

Among the subjects discussed was the ongoing success of kiruv rechokim, both in Eretz Yisroel and in Jewish communities across the globe, including Mexico, where increasing numbers of Jews have been strengthening their connection to Torah and mitzvos.

During the conversation, one of those present used the familiar expression baalei teshuvah to describe Jews who had embraced a Torah-observant lifestyle.

Rav Sternbuch immediately objected to the terminology, explaining that he considers the very designation inappropriate because it creates an artificial distinction between Jews who grew up observant and those who found their way back to Torah later in life.

“In my eyes, there is no such title as ‘baalei teshuvah,’ because by using it, you place them in a separate category. In my eyes, they are equal to everyone else!” Rav Sternbuch declared.

The posek hador continued, making clear that once a Jew has returned to a life of Torah, there is no justification for treating him as belonging to a separate group.

“I don’t want to hear the term ‘baalei teshuvah.’ To me, there is no such designation, because the moment a person returns to Torah, he is exactly like us,” Rav Sternbuch said.

Expanding on his position, Rav Sternbuch explained that even when the expression is used without any negative intention, it can convey the impression that a Jew who became observant later in life remains somehow different from the rest of the community.

“When someone is referred to by the title ‘baal teshuvah,’ it is chutzpah and brazenness, as though he is distant from us, when the truth is that he is completely one of us. The moment you call someone a ‘baal teshuvah,’ you create a division between these people and others, and that is not good,” he said.

{Matzav.com}

Nearly one-third of secular Israelis believe that Hashgacha Pratis played a role in the extraordinary rescue of the Flydubai passengers, according to a new survey revealing that belief in Divine Providence extends well beyond Israel’s religious communities.

The poll found that virtually every chareidi respondent attributed the passengers’ survival to Divine Providence, along with 94% of religious Jews and 84% of traditional Jews. Even among Israelis who identify as secular, approximately 32% acknowledged a Divine role in the rescue.

The findings, released Sunday by Arutz Sheva, come in the aftermath of the dramatic attempted hijacking of a Flydubai aircraft traveling from Dubai to Israel, during which passengers and crew intervened to prevent a potentially catastrophic crash.

The survey was conducted by the Mesaker-Rovadim Research Institute as part of the Israel Barometer project, examining how Israelis from different religious backgrounds interpreted the remarkable sequence of events that saved those aboard the aircraft.

Beyond measuring how many people believe Hashem intervened, the researchers uncovered another striking finding: Israelis differed considerably in how they described the relationship between Divine Providence and the courageous actions of the people who saved the plane.

Participants were presented with several possible explanations for the rescue, including two that explicitly recognized Divine Providence and another that attributed the outcome to human intervention and an unusual combination of circumstances.

The two religiously oriented responses were deliberately phrased differently, allowing researchers to examine whether respondents regarded Divine Providence as the primary force behind the rescue or viewed it as one element operating alongside human decisions and actions.

The first formulation described the rescue as “Divine Providence, acting through people and unique circumstances.”

The second characterized it as “A combination of human actions and unique circumstances with Divine Providence.”

Although both explanations recognize Hashem’s involvement, the distinction between them produced substantial differences across Israel’s religious communities.

Among secular Israelis, 21% selected the explanation emphasizing the combination of human efforts, circumstances and Divine Providence. Another 11% chose the formulation placing Divine Providence at the center of the rescue.

Together, those responses accounted for approximately one-third of secular participants, a notable finding given that these respondents do not identify themselves as religious.

Traditional Israelis expressed considerably greater belief in Divine intervention, with 84% selecting one of the two responses recognizing Divine Providence.

Within that group, 50% preferred the explanation emphasizing the combination of human actions and Divine Providence, while 34% selected the formulation describing Hashem’s Providence as operating through the people and circumstances involved.

A similar pattern emerged among respondents identifying with the more liberal religious community. In that category, 53% favored the combined explanation, compared with 32% who placed Divine Providence at the forefront.

Among more traditionally observant religious Israelis, however, the balance began to shift.

In the mainstream religious category, 51% chose the explanation emphasizing Divine Providence working through people and circumstances, while 44% preferred the formulation describing the rescue as a combination of human efforts and Divine intervention.

The difference became considerably more pronounced among Torah-oriented religious respondents, 75% of whom selected the explanation placing Divine Providence at the center. The remaining 25% preferred the alternative formulation, which gave greater prominence to the combination of human actions and circumstances.

The strongest preference emerged among chareidi respondents.

An overwhelming 93% of chareidim selected the explanation describing the rescue as Divine Providence operating through human actions and unusual circumstances. Only approximately 7% preferred the wording that presented Divine Providence alongside human intervention.

Taken together, the results indicate that all chareidi respondents recognized Hashgacha Pratis in the rescue, although they differed slightly in how they expressed that belief.

The survey also found that the same patterns appeared among men and women, suggesting that the differences were associated primarily with religious identification rather than gender.

Across both male and female respondents, the proportion attributing the rescue to Divine Providence increased consistently from secular Israelis through traditional and religious communities to the chareidi population.

The preference for particular wording also remained consistent. Secular and traditional respondents generally favored an explanation highlighting human actions together with Divine Providence, while more observant groups increasingly preferred language identifying Hashem’s Providence as the central force behind the outcome.

The difference is significant because both explanations recognize Divine Providence. What separates them is the emphasis placed on the actions of the people involved.

The first presents the rescue as an expression of Hashgacha Pratis, with the passengers, pilots and unusual circumstances serving as the means through which Hashem brought about their salvation.

The second gives more prominence to the courage and decisions of those aboard, while still acknowledging Divine involvement in the outcome.

{Matzav.com}

Israel has permitted Qatar to channel more than $100 million in humanitarian assistance into the Gaza Strip throughout the war against Hamas, including extensive fuel shipments and reconstruction initiatives involving institutions affiliated with the terrorist organization, according to information released by Qatari authorities.

The figures, published Sunday by Yisroel Hayom, reveal the scale of Doha’s continuing financial involvement in Gaza even as Israel has sought to dismantle Hamas’s military capabilities and prevent the organization from rebuilding its infrastructure.

Qatar, which has maintained longstanding ties with Hamas and played a central role in negotiations for the release of Israeli hostages, continued financing a wide range of activities inside Gaza during the fighting and subsequent ceasefire arrangements. The assistance included fuel deliveries, food supplies, medical equipment, water infrastructure and projects to remove debris from damaged neighborhoods.

The arrangements have raised concerns about whether Hamas has benefited from assistance intended for Gaza’s civilian population, particularly when projects are conducted through local bodies connected to the terrorist organization.

According to the Qatari figures, approximately 30 million liters of fuel were delivered to Gaza between the Hamas massacre of October 7, 2023, and the end of March 2026. An additional shipment of more than 1.3 million liters entered the territory by truck in September.

The fuel deliveries were coordinated through an arrangement between Qatar and the United Nations, with the stated purpose of maintaining essential services, including hospitals, humanitarian organizations and critical civilian infrastructure.

However, the substantial volume of fuel entering Gaza has prompted questions about whether Hamas could have obtained access to some of those resources or benefited indirectly from their distribution.

Fuel has been a particularly sensitive issue throughout the conflict because of its importance to civilian services as well as its potential use in transportation, generators and other activities that could support Hamas’s operations.

Israeli concerns extend beyond the fuel shipments to Qatar’s involvement in reconstruction and infrastructure projects carried out with organizations associated with Hamas.

During the summer, Qatar reportedly organized an initiative to remove rubble from hundreds of damaged residential buildings across Gaza. The work was undertaken in cooperation with institutions linked to Hamas, despite Israel’s declared objective of preventing the terrorist organization from reestablishing its governing capabilities.

Another Qatari-funded initiative involved drilling and maintenance work at more than 30 water wells, intended to restore access to water in areas affected by the fighting.

In February 2026, Doha announced an additional project to clear debris from roads throughout the Strip. That initiative was coordinated with local authorities identified as having affiliations with Hamas.

The involvement of such bodies has intensified questions about whether humanitarian projects could help preserve Hamas’s administrative networks, even when the assistance itself is designated for civilian purposes.

The latest revelations also revive longstanding concerns about Qatar’s financial relationship with Gaza’s Hamas-run administration, which predates the current war.

For years before the October 7 massacre, Qatar provided substantial financial assistance to Gaza with Israeli approval, including monthly payments intended to support impoverished families, civil servants and electricity generation.

Under earlier arrangements, Qatari money was delivered through a combination of direct payments, fuel supplies and internationally supervised mechanisms. Israel permitted many of those transfers as part of efforts to maintain stability in Gaza and prevent humanitarian conditions from deteriorating.

However, Israeli officials and security analysts have repeatedly warned that assistance directed toward civilian needs can also strengthen Hamas indirectly by allowing the organization to devote other resources to its military infrastructure.

Previous arrangements demonstrated how complicated that distinction can become. In 2021, Qatar and Egypt discussed a mechanism under which fuel supplied to Gaza would be sold locally, with the proceeds used to pay public-sector salaries, including employees working under the Hamas administration.

The current report raises similar concerns about the relationship between humanitarian assistance and the financial resources available to Hamas, although it does not establish that the entire $100 million was diverted to terrorist activity.

The central question is whether sufficient oversight exists to ensure that Qatari-funded projects benefit civilians without enabling Hamas to retain control over essential services or strengthen its governing institutions.

Despite those concerns, Israel has continued allowing Qatari humanitarian activities in Gaza, including deliveries coordinated through international organizations and infrastructure projects involving local authorities.

The Omani co-pilot accused of attempting to crash a Flydubai passenger aircraft into Ben Gurion Airport began planning the terrorist attack as far back as 2017, according to new information released by prosecutors in the United Arab Emirates, as an official familiar with the country’s leadership indicated that the suspect faces an exceptionally severe punishment.

The suspect, identified as Hammam al-Hamami, allegedly intended to carry out a September 11-style attack by deliberately flying the passenger jet into the terminal at Ben Gurion Airport, potentially killing hundreds of passengers and airport personnel.

A source close to the Emirati government told Israel’s Kan News on Motzoei Shabbos that the authorities intend to treat the attempted attack with the utmost seriousness.

“The punishment imposed on him will not be minor, but extremely significant,” the source said.

The warning came as the UAE’s attorney general issued a third public update on the investigation, revealing new details about the suspect’s preparations and the security failures that allowed him to continue working as a commercial airline pilot.

According to prosecutors, al-Hamami told investigators that he first began developing his plans in 2017, when he was living in Australia. The disclosure indicates that the alleged attack was the culmination of years of planning rather than a spontaneous decision made during the flight.

Investigators also confirmed that the intended target was the passenger terminal at Ben Gurion Airport, with the suspect seeking to replicate the devastation of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States.

The investigation found that al-Hamami had previously operated two flights to Israel and allegedly used those assignments to gather information about the flight route and the airport he intended to attack.

Those earlier flights provided him with opportunities to familiarize himself with the approach to Ben Gurion Airport and other operational details that could have assisted in carrying out the attack.

The new findings also shed light on the suspect’s earlier exposure to extremist ideology. UAE prosecutors say al-Hamami became radicalized while studying in Melbourne, Australia, where he attended RMIT University between 2015 and 2017. Investigators believe he consumed extremist propaganda and became increasingly fascinated with the September 11 attacks.

The 29-year-old reportedly underwent physical training, including boxing, as part of his preparations. Australian authorities are now examining his activities and contacts during his time in the country, with the Australian Federal Police, Victoria Police and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation participating in the investigation.

The investigation has also raised questions about how the suspect was permitted to serve as a pilot on flights to Israel despite earlier indications of extremist views.

Omani aviation authorities had previously prevented al-Hamami from operating passenger aircraft because of concerns about his radicalization. Reports indicate that he was removed from flying duties at Oman Air and transferred to an administrative position.

Nevertheless, he subsequently obtained employment with Flydubai, joining the airline in January 2026. According to Emirati authorities, he satisfied the company’s required professional qualifications and security screening procedures, which failed to identify the threat he allegedly posed.

The incident has exposed serious questions about the effectiveness of aviation security checks and the sharing of information between airlines and national authorities.

During the September 30 flight from Dubai to Israel, al-Hamami allegedly attacked the Indian captain, Smit Machchhar, with an emergency axe and attempted to seize control of the aircraft. The plane entered a dangerous descent before passengers and crew intervened and subdued the attacker.

The aircraft, carrying 174 passengers, was ultimately diverted to Saudi Arabia, where it landed safely.

The UAE investigation is examining whether al-Hamami received assistance or instructions from anyone else. During questioning, the suspect reportedly insisted that he acted independently and that no organization or outside individual directed the operation.

Prosecutors have not accepted that claim as the final word on the matter and are continuing to investigate possible accomplices or other connections.

The frequent public announcements from Emirati prosecutors have themselves attracted attention, with officials releasing several detailed updates while the investigation remains underway.

An Emirati source familiar with the thinking of senior government figures, although not speaking in an official capacity, explained to Kan News that the disclosures are intended to demonstrate the country’s commitment to transparency and the rule of law.

“The message from our perspective is that the Emirates operates transparently and that we are a country of justice and law,” the source said.

The investigation has also prompted Israeli authorities to examine how a pilot from Oman, a country that does not maintain formal diplomatic relations with Israel, was permitted to operate a flight to Ben Gurion Airport.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has ordered a review of the security arrangements governing foreign airlines flying to Israel, including the procedures used to screen flight crews.

With investigators now tracing the suspect’s alleged terrorist intentions back nearly a decade, attention is increasingly focused on how numerous warning signs went undetected or failed to prevent him from entering the cockpit of an aircraft bound for Israel.

{Matzav.com}

The miraculous rescue of 174 people aboard a Flydubai aircraft that was nearly crashed into Ben Gurion Airport involved at least twelve extraordinary developments, each of which played a crucial role in preventing a catastrophe that could have claimed hundreds of lives.

The attempted attack, which took place during Chol Hamoed Sukkos, ended with the passengers and crew surviving a terrifying plunge of thousands of meters after a member of the flight crew allegedly attempted to bring down the aircraft. The plane was ultimately brought under control and landed safely, despite damage sustained during the ordeal.

The magnitude of the nissim becomes even more apparent in light of the Houthi attack on Riyadh’s airport this Shabbos, which reportedly damaged aircraft and airport facilities and injured numerous people. The destruction demonstrated how devastating an attack on a major airport can be, and how much greater the tragedy at Ben Gurion Airport could have been had the Flydubai terrorist succeeded.

A closer examination of the incident reveals at least twelve distinct moments in which the passengers were spared from disaster, followed by an even broader series of potentially devastating consequences that were avoided.

The first neis involved the timing of the attack itself. Information that emerged this past week indicated that the suspected terrorist had flown a Flydubai aircraft to Israel approximately three months earlier and had already considered crashing that plane. However, an undisclosed personal relationship with another crew member reportedly caused him to abandon the plan and postpone it.

Had he proceeded with the earlier attempt, the circumstances would likely have been considerably different. The Indian pilot who later fought to save the aircraft might not have been aboard, Yaniv Chayun would probably not have been among the passengers, and the replacement pilots who assisted in the rescue might also have been absent. Ben Gurion Airport was also substantially busier during that earlier period, potentially placing many more people in danger.

The second neis was the presence of the Indian pilot, who struggled against the attacker and succeeded in opening the cockpit door, creating an opportunity for others to intervene.

The third involved a young girl and her mother, who heard desperate screams coming from the cockpit and realized that a serious emergency was unfolding. Their awareness helped alert those around them to the danger.

The fourth was the response of four courageous passengers who recognized what was happening and immediately rushed forward to confront the terrorist.

The fifth was their extraordinary success in overpowering an armed attacker with their bare hands while the aircraft was plunging toward the ground. The passengers were fighting for their lives as the plane descended thousands of meters in little more than half a minute, subjecting everyone aboard to tremendous physical forces.

The aircraft reportedly approached the speed of sound during the descent. Aviation experts have described the strain generated by such a maneuver as enormous, with the combination of speed and gravitational forces placing exceptional pressure on the aircraft and its occupants.

The sixth neis was that the aircraft’s structure remained intact. Despite the extreme forces generated by the dive, the fuselage did not crack or begin breaking apart, allowing the plane to remain capable of recovery.

The seventh was Chayun’s previous familiarity with the aircraft’s controls. Having learned how to operate them, he was able to assist in pulling the plane out of its descent and restoring stability.

The eighth was the precise manner in which he handled those controls. A pilot interviewed by The Jerusalem Post explained that pulling back too forcefully during such a steep dive could have caused the aircraft to disintegrate.

“If Yaniv Chayun had pulled the controls sharply upward during the dive, he would have crashed the plane. The aircraft would have broken apart in midair and would not have withstood it,” the pilot explained.

The pilot indicated that Chayun apparently applied pressure gradually, allowing the aircraft to recover without subjecting it to an abrupt and potentially catastrophic change in direction.

“Apparently, he pulled the controls backward in a more gradual and gentle manner. Combined with the aircraft’s characteristics and the autopilot system, this allowed the plane to recover from the dive,” he said.

The ninth neis was the presence of replacement pilots aboard the flight. Their availability provided additional trained personnel at the very moment when experienced assistance was desperately needed.

The tenth was that none of the passengers was killed or suffered life-threatening injuries despite the aircraft’s violent descent. The plane had plunged thousands of meters in approximately half a minute, yet everyone aboard survived.

The eleventh was the terrorist’s failure to destroy the aircraft’s control buttons and systems, something he reportedly intended to do to prevent anyone from regaining control.

The twelfth was the successful landing itself. Part of the aircraft’s rudder had reportedly been damaged during the dive, creating additional difficulties in controlling the plane. Nevertheless, the pilots managed to bring the aircraft down safely on the runway.

Each of these twelve developments played a significant role in the rescue. Had even one unfolded differently, the outcome could have been catastrophic.

But the nissim extended far beyond the survival of the 174 people aboard.

The terrorist’s alleged objective was to crash the aircraft into Ben Gurion Airport, potentially killing hundreds of additional people on the ground. Airport employees, passengers awaiting flights, security personnel and others inside the terminal and surrounding facilities could all have been placed in immediate danger.

The consequences of such an attack might also have extended into Israel’s broader security situation.

A successful attack on Ben Gurion Airport could have triggered a major military confrontation with Iran, particularly if evidence emerged linking Tehran to the attempted hijacking. Israeli rescue organizations and emergency personnel would have been occupied with the aftermath of a mass-casualty disaster just as the country potentially faced another round of fighting.

There was also the possibility that hostile forces elsewhere in the region would attempt to exploit the chaos. Terrorist organizations in Gaza, hostile elements in Yehudah and Shomron, or other groups could have viewed the emergency as an opportunity to launch additional attacks while Israel’s security forces were responding to the catastrophe.

The third anniversary of the October 7 massacre, marked just days ago, serves as a painful reminder of the dangers posed by simultaneous attacks and the immense difficulties involved in responding to a national emergency.

A successful aviation attack could also have encouraged other extremists to attempt similar acts against aircraft carrying Israeli passengers, raising the possibility of further threats to civilian aviation.

The political consequences might have been enormous as well.

With Israeli elections approaching, a devastating terrorist attack on the country’s principal airport could have generated widespread public outrage, fierce criticism of the Netanyahu government and demands for accountability over how the attack had been permitted to occur.

The resulting political upheaval might have influenced the election and brought significant changes to Israel’s leadership and security policies. Such possibilities remain hypothetical, but they underscore how far-reaching the consequences of a successful attack could have been.

The rescue also brings to mind another extraordinary chapter in Jewish history: the rescue of Jewish hostages from Entebbe in 1976.

Fifty years ago, during Simchas Torah 5737, the Lubavitcher Rebbe spoke extensively about the rescue operation that had taken place earlier that summer. At the time, some voices in the religious world had questioned whether it was appropriate to celebrate a military rescue carried out by Jews who were not personally observant.

The Rebbe, together with many other leading rabbonim, emphasized that the rescue of Jewish lives was an occasion for tremendous gratitude to the Ribbono Shel Olam. The soldiers who placed themselves in mortal danger to save fellow Jews had performed an extraordinary act of courage and sacrifice.

The Entebbe operation rescued approximately 105 Jewish and Israeli hostages, although it came at a terrible cost. Its commander, Yoni Netanyahu, was killed, along with three hostages. Another Jewish hostage, Dora Bloch, who had been transferred to a hospital, was subsequently murdered by Ugandan forces acting on the orders of dictator Idi Amin. Hy’d.

In the Flydubai rescue, all 174 people aboard survived, and no Jewish passenger suffered a life-threatening injury.

The events also give renewed meaning to the words of Hallel, “Ki gavar aleinu chasdo,” expressing gratitude for the extraordinary kindness of Hashem.

As Klal Yisroel emerged from Sukkos and Simchas Torah, the rescue provided a powerful reminder of the nissim that can unfold within a matter of seconds, when an entire aircraft and the lives of those aboard hang in the balance.

These twelve moments of salvation aboard the Flydubai flight, together with the countless dangers that were prevented, offer abundant reason to thank the Ribbono Shel Olam for His protection of Klal Yisroel.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump suggested Saturday that either the Atlantic Ocean or Pacific Ocean could be renamed the “Trump Ocean” or “Ocean of the Americas,” telling supporters at a campaign rally in Tennessee that he would like to see an ocean and a major American river receive new names before his presidency ends in 2028.

The president made the remarks during a wide-ranging appearance at the F&M Bank Arena in Clarksville, where he was campaigning for Republican candidates ahead of the November 3 midterm elections. His comments, delivered in a joking manner and greeted with laughter and applause, followed his administration’s earlier decisions to rename the Gulf of Mexico and Lake Ontario.

“We’ve got the gulf. We’ve got a beautiful lake,” Trump told the crowd, referring to the Gulf of America and Lake America, the names adopted by his administration.

He then suggested that his geographical renaming efforts could extend considerably further, including to one of the world’s largest oceans.

“So we need a river and we need an ocean. So I was thinking either the Atlantic or the Pacific. We call it Trump Ocean, or Ocean of the Americas. Something like that,” Trump said.

The president indicated that he would like to accomplish another major renaming before leaving the White House, although he offered no indication that a formal proposal was being prepared.

“Before I get out, I think we should have an ocean. And we need a great river,” he added.

Trump also made clear that two prominent American rivers would be excluded from consideration.

The Hudson River, which flows through his home state of New York, would retain its name because of the president’s admiration for the English explorer Henry Hudson, after whom the waterway was named.

“I don’t want to change the name of the Hudson River. Henry Hudson, he did a good job sailing up that sucker a long time ago,” Trump remarked.

He similarly ruled out renaming the Mississippi River, explaining that he has considerable affection for Mississippi because of the overwhelming support he received from voters there during his presidential campaigns.

“I’m not changing the name of the Mississippi. I love Mississippi. We won that state by so much,” he said.

The remarks represent the latest installment in Trump’s campaign to place a distinctly American identity on prominent geographical landmarks.

Shortly after returning to the White House in January 2025, Trump ordered the federal government to recognize the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. The change generated international attention and diplomatic objections from Mexico, which continued using the longstanding name.

The decision also produced a dispute between the White House and the Associated Press, which declined to adopt the new designation in all its reporting. The disagreement escalated into a legal battle concerning the news organization’s access to presidential events.

In August, Trump extended his renaming efforts to Lake Ontario, the massive body of water shared by New York and Canada, announcing that it would be known as Lake America. The move came amid heightened tensions between Washington and Ottawa over trade policies and tariffs.

Major digital mapping services subsequently incorporated the administration’s preferred geographical names, although the changes did not require other countries to abandon their established terminology.

Trump has also recently floated the possibility of changing the name of New Mexico to New America, an idea he raised while endorsing a Republican congressional candidate in the state.

Unlike the renaming of certain federally recognized geographical features, changing the name of a state would require additional governmental action. Trump has acknowledged that such a decision would ultimately depend on New Mexico residents and Congress.

Saturday’s remarks about the oceans came during an almost two-hour rally that combined campaign appeals, economic announcements, foreign policy commentary and the president’s trademark improvisational humor.

Musician Kid Rock opened the event, offering a humorous introduction that praised Trump’s leadership while taking a swipe at the news media.

“Literally, President Trump could walk across the Cumberland River, and tomorrow the headline would say President Trump refuses to swim,” the performer joked.

Trump appeared in Tennessee to support Republican Sen. Bill Hagerty and gubernatorial candidate Marsha Blackburn, repeatedly emphasizing the importance of Republican turnout in the upcoming midterm elections.

The president also highlighted major manufacturing investments in Tennessee, including a multibillion-dollar critical-minerals project involving Korea Zinc and a previously announced $275 million General Motors investment in its Spring Hill facility.

He promoted his administration’s efforts to reduce crime in Memphis and discussed the conflict involving Iran, asserting that American military operations had severely weakened Tehran’s naval and air-defense capabilities.

During his discussion of Iran and the strategically important Strait of Hormuz, Trump even floated another possible geographical change, suggesting that the waterway could someday be called the “Trump Strait.”

Despite the various names mentioned during the rally, the president did not announce any executive action concerning the Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean or a major American river.

Trump concluded his campaign appeals by urging supporters to approach the November elections as though he were personally on the ballot.

“In this election, I’m asking you to do me a favor. Pretend. Just pretend that I’m running,” Trump told the crowd.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump is considering launching American military strikes against the Iran-backed Houthi terrorist organization following a devastating attack on Saudi Arabia’s main international airport that killed 12 people, including an American citizen, and wounded more than 300 others.

The president’s warning came as the Houthis threatened additional attacks on civilian aviation facilities, prompting growing concern that the escalating confrontation between Saudi Arabia and the Yemen-based terrorist group could draw the United States into a wider regional conflict.

Speaking with reporters, Trump indicated that Washington was weighing whether to participate in Saudi Arabia’s planned military retaliation following the attack on King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh.

“We may. We’re going to look at it,” Trump told reporters when asked about joining the attacks against the Houthis.

“We just found out about the recent attack, so we’ll make a decision. We move very quickly,” he said.

Trump separately condemned the airport attack and suggested that the administration was maintaining contact with the Houthis while considering its next steps.

“I think it’s terrible,” Trump added at another point. “The Saudis are good fighters, but I think the attack was a terrible thing. We have communication with the Houthis, and we’ll see what happens. But what they did was very bad.”

The attack was among the deadliest incidents in the latest escalation between the Houthis and Saudi Arabia, striking a major civilian transportation hub and causing extensive casualties.

Among the 12 people killed were nationals of the United States, the Palestinian territories, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Sudan and Bangladesh. More than 300 additional people were reported injured.

The airport attack has intensified fears about the vulnerability of civilian aviation facilities as the Houthis increasingly threaten targets beyond Yemen’s borders.

Rather than retreating following the international condemnation, a Houthi spokesman issued an additional warning over the weekend, declaring that airports had become “a theatre of operations for our forces” and urging “everyone to take our warnings seriously.”

The spokesman also accused Saudi Arabia of bearing “responsibility for any failed interceptions,” apparently seeking to blame Riyadh for casualties resulting from attempts to intercept incoming Houthi projectiles.

The threats have heightened concerns that additional airports and civilian facilities in Saudi Arabia could become targets if the fighting continues.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a forceful condemnation of the attack, emphasizing American support for Saudi Arabia and demanding that the Houthis cease their attacks.

“The United States strongly condemns the recent attacks on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia by the terrorist Houthis,” Rubio said.

“These reprehensible attacks demonstrate a blatant disregard for innocent civilian life. They must stop now,” Rubio added. “We stand with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its people and extend our condolences to the victims and their families.”

The possibility of American intervention would mark a significant change in Washington’s approach to the Houthis following a ceasefire arrangement reached in May.

Under that understanding, the Houthis agreed to stop attacking vessels in the Red Sea, and the Trump administration subsequently refrained from renewed military operations against the organization.

Trump had appeared reluctant to become entangled in another prolonged Middle Eastern confrontation, particularly as the region continued grappling with the consequences of the war involving Iran and its network of allied terrorist organizations.

The Houthis’ apparent adherence to the maritime ceasefire had been a major consideration in Washington’s decision to avoid direct involvement in the renewed Saudi-Houthi fighting.

However, the killing of an American citizen at Riyadh’s airport, together with the Houthis’ threats of further attacks against civilian targets, has increased pressure on the administration to reconsider that position.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has reportedly urged Trump to authorize American military action against the Houthis, seeking assistance similar to the strikes carried out by U.S. forces between March and May.

Saudi Arabia has already begun responding militarily to the airport attack.

According to the Houthis, Saudi aircraft conducted two strikes against Sanaa, Yemen’s capital, which has been under Houthi control for more than a decade.

The Houthi-controlled Health Ministry has also claimed that approximately 91 people have been killed and 168 wounded in Saudi-led coalition attacks over the preceding five weeks. Those figures have not been independently verified.

The repercussions have extended beyond the airport itself. Saudi authorities suspended operations at King Khalid International Airport following the strike, forcing airlines to cancel or divert flights and leaving travelers facing widespread disruption.

The closure was extended Sunday as officials assessed the damage and continued examining the security situation. Saudi aviation authorities reported damage to airport facilities, including passenger terminals and communications equipment.

In a further development Sunday, the Saudi-led coalition reported that another projectile struck a passenger terminal at the Riyadh airport, underscoring the continuing danger despite the suspension of regular flight operations.

The United States has also warned Americans about the deteriorating security situation. The State Department issued an updated travel advisory Saturday urging Americans to reconsider travel to Saudi Arabia because of missile and drone threats, armed conflict and terrorism.

The latest violence follows several weeks of escalating hostilities between the Houthis and Saudi-backed forces in Yemen. Saudi Arabia reportedly intercepted a Houthi drone near Mecca last month, an incident that further inflamed tensions.

The Houthis, who receive backing from Iran, seized control of Sanaa in 2014, forcing Yemen’s internationally recognized government from the capital.

Saudi Arabia intervened militarily the following year, leading a coalition intended to restore the Yemeni government. The conflict subsequently developed into a prolonged war, with periods of intense fighting interrupted by fragile ceasefires and negotiations.

Although a United Nations-brokered truce in 2022 reduced large-scale hostilities for a time, the underlying dispute remained unresolved.

The latest confrontation has intensified as the Houthis have expanded their presence along Yemen’s Red Sea coastline and around the strategically important Bab al-Mandab Strait, through which significant international shipping traffic passes.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has fired back at Sen. Elizabeth Warren with a sharply worded letter ridiculing her understanding of financial markets and concluding with a handwritten greeting referencing her past claims of Native American ancestry.

The response, sent yesterday and obtained by FOX Business, followed Warren’s latest demand for information about rising Treasury yields and borrowing costs. Bessent used the exchange to criticize the Massachusetts Democrat’s economic record, accuse her of political grandstanding, and suggest that she needed remedial instruction in finance.

At the bottom of the letter, Bessent added a handwritten message: “Happy Indigenous People’s Day in advance to you and your family,” an unmistakable reference to the controversy surrounding Warren’s previous identification as Native American.

The exchange marks another escalation in the increasingly personal dispute between the Treasury secretary and Warren, who has repeatedly questioned the Trump administration’s economic policies and demanded detailed explanations from the department.

According to the report, Warren has sent Treasury officials more than 100 letters seeking information over the past 21 months. Bessent portrayed the latest correspondence as part of a sustained campaign against the administration rather than a serious attempt to understand developments in the bond market.

“Rather than take my suggestion of studying introductory economics, you have continued your letter-writing crusade and participation in tabloid fodder about the Treasury Department,” he wrote.

The confrontation began with an October 7 letter in which Warren questioned the administration’s response to the rising yield on 10-year Treasury securities, a benchmark that influences borrowing costs throughout the American economy, including mortgage rates and other forms of credit.

Warren sought details about the steps Treasury officials were taking to make borrowing more affordable for ordinary Americans and requested written answers by October 21.

In her correspondence, the senator blamed the administration’s policies for contributing to higher interest rates and argued that the recent increase in government bond yields was the result of avoidable economic decisions.

“The surge in Treasury yields is self-inflicted and follows the Fed’s decision to raise the federal funds rate by a quarter of a percentage point, driven by concerns about inflation.”

Bessent disputed Warren’s account of the economic situation and questioned why she had not expressed similar concerns about government spending and inflation during President Joe Biden’s administration.

“It is difficult to treat your concern as sincere,” Bessent wrote, before accusing Warren of supporting policies that contributed to the inflation and interest-rate increases experienced during the previous administration.

“As the federal funds rate climbed from near zero to its highest level in 22 years, with inflation hitting a 40-year high, you were a cheerleader for the Biden Administration’s reckless spending.”

He further accused Warren of directing criticism toward the Federal Reserve when interest rates rose under Biden, rather than acknowledging what he described as the consequences of “your own irresponsible fiscal policies.”

The Treasury secretary also defended President Trump’s tax legislation, contrasting the administration’s approach with Warren’s support for higher taxes.

“While you voted for a $5 trillion tax hike on every day Americans, the Working Families Tax Cuts continue to deliver for families and workers across the country,” he wrote.

Warren, however, argued that the tax provisions in Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill would substantially increase federal borrowing while disproportionately benefiting wealthy Americans and large corporations.

According to her letter, the legislation is projected to add $4.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, with benefits flowing primarily to the “ultra-wealthy and large corporations — while cutting health care and food assistance for families. Meanwhile, the Iran war has cost taxpayers an estimated $43.6 billion to date, according to the Pentagon.”

The competing claims reflect a broader disagreement over the effects of the administration’s tax and spending policies. Warren maintains that the legislation will deepen federal deficits and increase financial pressure on working families, while Bessent argues that its tax provisions are supporting workers and economic growth.

Bessent’s response became particularly pointed near its conclusion, when he offered to provide Warren with educational materials on subjects he suggested she had failed to master.

He proposed “a Foreign Exchange for Dummies tutorial,” followed by another lesson if the senator successfully completed the first.

“if you receive a passing grade to the Yale metric, not the Harvard curve, I would be happy to also include a Fixed Income for Dummies.”

The reference to the two Ivy League institutions carried an additional personal element. Warren previously taught law at Harvard University, while Bessent served as an instructor in economic history at Yale.

The Treasury secretary’s closing greeting about Indigenous Peoples’ Day revived a controversy that followed Warren for years, particularly during her presidential campaign.

Warren faced sustained criticism over her earlier claims of Native American heritage, which she said were based on stories passed down through her family. Before entering the Senate, she had identified herself as an “American Indian” or a minority in certain professional records.

President Trump repeatedly mocked those claims, referring to Warren as “Pocahontas,” a nickname that became a recurring feature of his political attacks against her.

In 2018, Warren released the results of a DNA test intended to demonstrate that she had distant Indigenous ancestry. The move prompted objections from tribal representatives, who emphasized that genetic testing does not establish membership in a Native American tribe or determine tribal identity.

Warren subsequently apologized to several tribes for taking the test and acknowledged their objections to her approach.

The dispute over Treasury yields comes amid growing concern about the cost of borrowing in the United States. The benchmark 10-year Treasury yield recently climbed above 5.2 percent, reaching levels not seen in more than two decades and contributing to higher financing costs for homeowners, businesses and the federal government.

Warren has also challenged the Treasury Department’s expanded bond-buyback operations, arguing that the administration’s purchases of older government securities have failed to prevent yields from rising. In her October 7 letter, she cited multibillion-dollar buybacks conducted in September and October and questioned whether additional intervention was being considered.

Bessent responded that the buyback program began in May 2024, during the Biden administration, and defended it as a mechanism for improving liquidity in the Treasury market rather than an effort to dictate interest rates. He maintained that the program had received a favorable response from market participants.

The secretary also highlighted tax benefits claimed by millions of Americans under the administration’s legislation, including provisions affecting overtime income, tips, senior citizens and families with children.

The latest confrontation follows earlier public exchanges between Bessent and Warren over the Treasury Department’s handling of foreign exchange markets and the broader direction of economic policy. In August, Bessent had already offered Warren a tutorial on currency markets, an invitation he revived in yesterday’s letter.

Warren has separately promoted a Trumpflation Tracker intended to measure the cumulative effect of rising prices on American households. Bessent challenged the methodology yesterday, accusing the senator of selectively presenting inflation and wage figures to portray the administration’s economic record unfavorably.

The two remain sharply divided over the causes of rising borrowing costs, the effectiveness of Treasury’s market operations and the impact of Trump’s tax policies. Warren has requested a formal response to her latest questions by October 21.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump announced Sunday that Russia and Ukraine have agreed to immediately halt attacks on each other’s energy infrastructure, marking a potentially significant development in the war just two days after his administration unveiled a controversial agreement to purchase large quantities of Russian diesel fuel.

The announcement follows mounting concern in Washington over soaring American diesel prices, which have become a major political issue ahead of the November 3 midterm elections, as well as criticism from Ukrainian officials and members of both American political parties over Trump’s decision to resume fuel purchases from Moscow.

“Effective immediately, there is an ENERGY CEASEFIRE in the War between Russia and Ukraine,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Both parties have agreed. Do not break it! Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

The president did not immediately provide details about the agreement’s duration, enforcement mechanisms or whether it would apply to all energy-related facilities in both countries. Independent confirmation of the terms from Moscow and Kyiv was not included in the initial announcement.

The reported agreement comes after months of increasingly destructive attacks against energy installations on both sides of the conflict.

Ukraine has repeatedly targeted Russian oil refineries and other petroleum facilities in an effort to weaken Moscow’s ability to finance and sustain its military operations. Those attacks have disrupted refining capacity and placed additional pressure on Russia’s energy industry.

Russia, meanwhile, has continued striking Ukraine’s electricity generation facilities, power distribution networks and other critical infrastructure, causing widespread damage and creating serious difficulties for Ukrainian civilians.

The Trump administration has argued that Ukrainian strikes against Russian refineries have contributed to tightening global diesel supplies, pushing prices higher even in countries that no longer purchase Russian petroleum products directly.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright has maintained that disruptions to Russia’s refining industry can affect international fuel markets and ultimately raise costs for American consumers, regardless of existing restrictions on Russian imports.

According to figures cited by the American Automobile Association, the national average price of diesel has climbed to approximately $6.28 per gallon, placing additional pressure on trucking companies, agricultural businesses and other industries that depend heavily on diesel fuel.

Higher transportation costs can also affect consumer prices because diesel-powered trucks are responsible for moving substantial quantities of food, merchandise and other goods throughout the United States.

With the midterm elections approaching, the administration has faced increasing pressure to demonstrate that it is taking action to address fuel costs and their broader economic consequences.

The ceasefire announcement also follows Trump’s agreement Friday with Russian President Vladimir Putin to resume large-scale diesel supplies to the American and international markets, a decision that drew immediate objections from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and criticism from lawmakers in both parties.

Following a telephone conversation with Putin, Trump said Russia would supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel immediately, followed by another 500,000 tons in November and an additional 1 million tons afterward. He also outlined plans for a further 3 million tons to be delivered subsequently, depending on the condition of Russia’s refining facilities.

The Treasury Department subsequently authorized a temporary relaxation of restrictions on Russian diesel transactions, allowing certain imports through April 2027.

The decision represented a significant change in American policy toward Russian energy exports, which have been subject to restrictions since Moscow launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Zelensky sharply condemned the arrangement, describing it as a “betrayal” and warning that increased Russian energy revenues could provide Moscow with additional resources to continue its military campaign.

The Ukrainian president has maintained that pressure on Russia’s energy industry is an important component of Kyiv’s strategy for weakening Moscow’s ability to sustain the war.

The agreement also provoked questions in Washington about its legality under the Ending Importation of Russian Oil Act of 2022, which prohibited imports of Russian petroleum products into the United States.

Critics have argued that the administration may lack the authority to resume purchases without congressional approval, while the Treasury Department has relied on temporary licensing arrangements to facilitate the transactions.

According to reporting on the negotiations, Trump had repeatedly urged Ukraine to suspend attacks on Russian refineries before reaching the diesel arrangement with Putin. A senior American official said Zelensky had disregarded several such requests, contributing to the administration’s decision to pursue an alternative approach.

The diplomatic dispute unfolded as American representatives continued discussions with Ukrainian and European officials in Miami about possible steps toward ending the war.

Trump’s envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, have also been considering additional meetings in Moscow and Kyiv as part of the administration’s efforts to revive negotiations.

The president previously announced a mutual halt to attacks on energy infrastructure in September, but strikes continued afterward, highlighting the difficulty of translating diplomatic commitments into a lasting cessation of hostilities.

Sunday’s announcement therefore raises immediate questions about whether the latest agreement will succeed where earlier efforts failed.

The distinction between an energy ceasefire and a broader military truce is also significant. Trump’s statement addressed attacks on energy targets and did not announce an end to ground combat, missile strikes against other facilities or military operations along the front lines.

Fighting elsewhere in Ukraine continued over the weekend, including Russian attacks that struck residential areas and caused civilian casualties.

It was not immediately clear whether either side had issued new operational instructions to its military forces following Trump’s announcement, or how alleged violations of the arrangement would be investigated.

For the Trump administration, the agreement offers a potential means of reducing attacks on energy infrastructure while addressing the fuel-price pressures that have become increasingly prominent in American domestic politics.

Whether the ceasefire will hold, however, will depend on the actions of Moscow and Kyiv and on the details of an arrangement that neither government had publicly confirmed when Trump made his announcement.

{Matzav.com}

Former Vice President Mike Pence has sharply condemned President Donald Trump’s agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin to ease restrictions on Russian diesel exports, accusing Trump of betraying the legacy of the late Sen. Lindsey Graham and providing financial assistance to Moscow while its military continues its war against Ukraine.

In a lengthy statement posted on X, Pence urged Trump to cancel the arrangement immediately and restore tough economic measures against Russia, arguing that the administration’s decision undermines years of American efforts to pressure Putin into ending the conflict.

“President Trump’s decision to lift sanctions on Russian fuel amidst Putin’s ongoing and brutal attacks on civilian targets in Ukraine makes no sense and is a betrayal of the legacy and leadership of the late Senator Lindsey Graham,” Pence wrote in a lengthy X post.

Pence, 67, who served as vice president throughout Trump’s first administration, invoked Graham’s longstanding campaign for tougher sanctions on Moscow. The South Carolina Republican, who died in July, had been among the most outspoken congressional advocates of punishing Russia economically over its invasion of Ukraine.

“Instead of implementing the tough sanctions Lindsey Graham fought to his last breath to enact, President Trump has announced the United States is lifting sanctions on Russian energy, fueling the Putin’s war machine,” Pence added.

Graham had worked on legislation intended to impose sweeping penalties on countries purchasing Russian energy, seeking to deprive Moscow of revenue that could be used to sustain its military operations. His death came shortly after a visit to Ukraine, where he had continued advocating stronger American measures against Russia.

Pence also referred to his own recent trip to Ukraine, saying he had personally observed conditions that convinced him Moscow was failing to achieve its military objectives.

The former vice president said he “saw firsthand in Ukraine last month” that “Putin is losing this war.”

He argued that Washington should maintain economic pressure on Russia rather than allow additional fuel sales that could generate revenue for the Kremlin.

“America should not be throwing a lifeline to Putin’s war machine. Now is the time to stand strong against Russian aggression as we did during the first Trump administration,” he implored.

Pence further warned that Russian ambitions could eventually threaten NATO countries and potentially draw American forces into a direct confrontation with Moscow.

“Putin doesn’t want peace. Putin wants Ukraine. I have no doubt that if Putin overruns Ukraine, it will only be a matter of time until Russia’s military crosses a border that our troops will have to deal with him.”

Calling for a return to the Russia policies pursued during Trump’s first term, Pence said the United States should intensify sanctions on nations buying Russian energy while ensuring that Ukraine receives the weapons and assistance necessary to continue defending itself.

“America is the Leader of the Free World,” he continued. “For our National Security, for the security of our Allies in Europe including Ukraine, President Trump should rescind this deal immediately and return to the strong policies of our four years in the White House; impose harsh sanctions on any nation purchasing Russian energy and work with our allies to ensure Ukraine has the military support it needs to repel and defeat this Russian invasion once and for all.”

The criticism followed Trump’s announcement Friday that he had reached an agreement with Putin to release millions of tons of Russian diesel into international markets, a move intended to address soaring fuel prices in the United States and abroad.

Under the arrangement described by Trump, Russia is expected to make more than 300,000 metric tons of diesel available immediately, followed by another 500,000 tons in November and 1 million tons shortly afterward. The president also said Moscow had committed to providing an additional 3 million tons within a relatively short period, depending on the condition of Russian refineries.

The Treasury Department subsequently announced a temporary authorization allowing Russian diesel to enter international markets despite existing American sanctions. The measure is scheduled to remain in effect until April 2027.

The decision represents a significant change in Washington’s approach to Russian energy exports, which have been targeted by successive sanctions intended to reduce the Kremlin’s ability to finance its military campaign.

Trump has defended the agreement as a practical response to the steep increase in diesel prices, which has placed additional financial pressure on American trucking companies, agricultural operations and businesses dependent on transportation.

Diesel prices have climbed above $6 per gallon nationally, driven in part by disruptions to global energy supplies associated with the war involving Iran. The increase has become a growing political concern for Republicans ahead of the November 3 midterm elections.

The president has faced mounting pressure from members of his own party to bring fuel costs under control, particularly because diesel prices affect the cost of transporting food, merchandise and other essential goods throughout the country.

Trump has argued that increasing available supplies would help ease those pressures, although some energy analysts have questioned whether the Russian shipments would be large enough to produce a substantial reduction in American fuel prices.

The agreement has also provoked an angry response from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who warned that allowing Moscow to earn additional revenue from petroleum exports would strengthen Russia’s ability to continue its military campaign.

Zelensky argued that relaxing sanctions without obtaining meaningful concessions from Putin would weaken Western leverage and make a negotiated end to the war more difficult.

The controversy intensified Saturday as Russian attacks struck residential buildings in Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia region, killing at least 20 people, including three children, according to Ukrainian officials.

Trump, meanwhile, has criticized Zelensky’s handling of the conflict and suggested that Ukraine should consider new leadership capable of reaching an agreement with Moscow. The president has also blamed Ukrainian attacks on Russian oil infrastructure for contributing to disruptions in global diesel supplies.

Pence’s criticism adds to objections raised by lawmakers in both parties. Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal has also called for the arrangement to be withdrawn, arguing that it contradicts congressional efforts to restrict Russian energy revenues and dishonors Graham’s work on sanctions legislation.

{Matzav.com}

Israel is unlikely to launch a new offensive against Iran before the November 3 midterm elections in the United States, primarily because President Donald Trump wants to prevent another surge in oil prices ahead of the vote, according to a senior Israeli official.

The assessment, reported by Israel’s Channel 12, comes amid continuing consultations between Yerushalayim and Washington over Iran and the possibility of renewed military action against the Islamic Republic.

According to the senior official, despite ongoing discussions about potential operations, the prevailing assessment in Israel is that a preemptive strike will be postponed until after Americans head to the polls.

The central consideration is the position of the Trump administration. Israeli officials recognize that any major operation against Iran would require close coordination with Washington, particularly given the United States’ leading role in the confrontation with Tehran.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has previously emphasized that the United States is the senior partner in the campaign against Iran. As a result, American political and economic considerations are expected to play a significant role in determining the timing of any renewed military offensive.

Trump is reportedly reluctant to authorize another attack before the November 3 elections because of concerns that renewed fighting could drive up global oil prices, creating additional economic pressure on American consumers just as they prepare to vote.

The American elections are scheduled to take place approximately one week after Israel’s own elections, adding another political consideration to the timing of any potential escalation.

Despite the expectation that military action will be delayed, Israeli and American officials have substantially increased their communications and intelligence exchanges in recent weeks.

The intensified coordination reflects an assessment that Iran’s government is coming under mounting economic pressure and may struggle to withstand the current American strategy over an extended period.

A major component of that pressure is the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which Israeli officials reportedly regard as particularly effective in weakening Tehran’s economy.

According to the assessments cited in the report, restrictions affecting the strategic waterway are accelerating Iran’s economic deterioration and contributing to a sharp increase in the value of the U.S. dollar against the Iranian currency.

The resulting financial instability is placing additional strain on the Iranian government, which is already contending with the broader consequences of American economic and military pressure.

Israeli officials nevertheless caution that the absence of plans for an immediate offensive does not eliminate the possibility of renewed fighting before the American elections.

One scenario under consideration involves Iran initiating a provocation that could trigger an Israeli or American military response, potentially disrupting the current expectation of a temporary pause in offensive operations.

Another assessment suggests that Iranian leaders may themselves prefer to avoid an escalation before Israel’s elections, fearing that an attack during the campaign could strengthen Netanyahu politically.

Under that scenario, Tehran could choose to postpone provocative actions until after Israelis have cast their ballots, although officials acknowledge that Iranian decision-making remains difficult to predict.

Security officials stress that these scenarios are assessments rather than confirmed plans and that developments could change depending on actions taken by Iran or other regional actors.

For now, the prevailing assessment in Israel is that a coordinated American-Israeli offensive against Iran is unlikely in the immediate future, with the November elections serving as a significant factor in Washington’s calculations.

{Matzav.com}

The United States has recorded more than 4,000 measles infections in 2026, with Pennsylvania emerging as the center of the nation’s largest outbreak and accounting for more than one-quarter of all reported cases, according to the latest figures released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Federal health officials reported Friday that 4,080 cases have been identified across 47 states and Washington, D.C. Pennsylvania alone has registered 1,105 infections, giving it the highest total of any state and placing it well ahead of the rest of the country.

South Carolina ranks second with 670 cases, leaving Pennsylvania with 435 more infections than the next most affected state.

The Pennsylvania outbreak represents the state’s most severe measles resurgence in more than three decades. It has also become the subject of a contentious disagreement between Gov. Josh Shapiro and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., particularly over how deaths associated with the disease should be classified and reported.

Measles spreads readily through the air and is considered one of the most contagious infectious diseases. The CDC recommends two doses of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine as the most effective means of preventing infection. Pennsylvania health officials say the complete two-dose series provides approximately 97 percent protection against measles, with immunity generally lasting throughout a person’s lifetime.

Children and teenagers account for the largest share of infections nationwide. According to the CDC’s 2026 figures, 42 percent of reported patients are between the ages of 5 and 19, while children younger than 5 represent another 17 percent. Adults aged 20 and older account for approximately 40 percent of cases, with the percentages reflecting rounded figures.

The federal agency has identified 42 separate measles outbreaks this year. Approximately 96 percent of all confirmed infections have been connected to those outbreaks, indicating that the overwhelming majority of cases are associated with established chains of transmission.

The national figures have already exceeded the total for the entirety of 2025, when 2,289 measles infections were reported across 45 states and Washington, D.C. The 2026 count is now nearly 1,800 cases higher, even with more than two months remaining in the year.

One of the most disputed aspects of the current outbreak concerns the number of deaths attributed to measles in Pennsylvania.

State health authorities have reported five measles-associated fatalities, while the CDC’s latest national figures recognize only two deaths for 2026. The difference has fueled a public confrontation between Shapiro and Kennedy over the medical standards used to determine whether measles was responsible for a patient’s death.

The federal database does not identify the states or dates associated with its two reported fatalities. As a result, it remains uncertain whether those deaths correspond to any of the five cases documented by Pennsylvania officials. No other state has reported a measles-related death this year.

The CDC has acknowledged that its national fatality count could be revised as additional medical information is examined.

“This number is subject to change. CDC will update its reporting as additional information becomes available and relevant reviews are completed.”

The rise in infections has also prompted emergency action in New York, where Gov. Kathy Hochul declared a statewide disaster emergency on Monday in response to an ongoing measles outbreak.

New York has recorded 97 cases so far this year, compared with 26 throughout 2025, according to federal surveillance figures. The increase has heightened concerns among state health officials as measles continues to spread in multiple regions of the country.

For comparison, three measles deaths were reported nationwide during 2025, including two in Texas and one in New Mexico.

Additional federal data released October 9 show that measles cases increased by 193 in a single week, while 414 patients have been hospitalized nationwide this year, compared with 244 during all of 2025.

Pennsylvania health officials also reported that more than 53,000 MMR vaccine doses were administered across the state during September, more than twice the usual monthly volume, as authorities intensified efforts to contain the outbreak.

The CDC’s total of 4,080 includes 4,062 cases reported by U.S. jurisdictions and 18 infections identified among international visitors.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump said that he will personally decide whether the execution of convicted Fort Hood mass murderer Nidal Hasan should be broadcast live, as a proposal to televise the firing squad execution draws objections from lawmakers in both parties.

Speaking with reporters on the White House South Lawn, Trump said he was considering competing arguments over whether the public should be permitted to watch Hasan’s execution, which is scheduled for December 3.

“He’s a vicious killer, killed 13 people in cold blood, wounded over 20. Some of those people will never have their lives back in a true sense,” Trump told reporters. “He was vicious. He was violent.”

The president suggested that making the execution publicly viewable could discourage others from committing similar atrocities, although he acknowledged that there were strong opinions on both sides of the issue.

“There are two thoughts: don’t show it and show it, because you know by showing it, maybe other people won’t be doing what he did,” the president continued. “So I’ll make a decision ultimately. I know what the military would like to do, but we’ll make a decision.”

Trump’s latest comments followed remarks Friday in which he indicated that officials were still reviewing the possibility of broadcasting the execution, while making clear that the sentence itself would be carried out.

According to Trump, “they’re making a determination about” whether Hasan’s death should be livestreamed, “but he will be killed, it will be through firing squad.”

The president also expressed little concern over the particular circumstances of Hasan’s execution, emphasizing his belief that the death penalty was justified by the magnitude of the attack.

“So, I really don’t care how he goes, as long as he goes, and I think that the death penalty is a very worthy way of going for him,” Trump stated.

The White House confirmed earlier in the week that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had formally proposed executing Hasan by firing squad on December 3 and that Trump had authorized the recommendation.

Hasan, who served as an Army psychiatrist, carried out the November 2009 massacre at a military processing facility at Fort Hood, Texas. Armed with a handgun, he opened fire on soldiers and civilians, murdering 12 military personnel and one civilian and wounding 32 others.

The shooting became the deadliest mass shooting ever carried out at an American military installation, devastating military families and raising serious questions about security procedures and warning signs preceding the attack.

Hasan represented himself during his 2013 military trial and openly acknowledged responsibility for the killings. During his opening statement, he told the court that the “evidence will clearly show that I am the shooter,” while explaining that he had acted in response to American military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He was convicted and sentenced to death, although his execution has remained pending for more than a decade as the military justice process continued.

Vice President JD Vance addressed the proposed livestream Friday, distancing himself from the idea of watching the execution and expressing uncertainty about whether a broadcast would ultimately take place.

Vance told reporters that he would not watch the execution if it were televised and added, “I don’t know that that’s actually going to happen.”

The proposal has generated significant opposition on Capitol Hill, with Republicans joining Democrats in questioning whether a public broadcast of an execution would be appropriate for the United States military.

Critics have raised concerns about turning the implementation of a military death sentence into a public spectacle, even in a case involving one of the deadliest attacks against American service members.

Democratic lawmakers have also challenged Hegseth’s handling of the matter, with Sen. Mark Kelly among those calling for the defense secretary’s removal over the proposed public execution.

Should the December 3 execution proceed, it would mark the first time the U.S. military has carried out a death sentence in approximately 65 years. The last military execution took place in 1961, when Army Private John A. Bennett was hanged at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

Hegseth has defended the proposed broadcast as a means of demonstrating the consequences of attacks against American military personnel. During a television interview Thursday, he said the execution would be accessible to the public because “people need to understand that there’s serious consequences for these types of things.”

Opposition has extended beyond Washington. Survivors of the Fort Hood massacre have voiced concerns about the proposed broadcast, including Alonzo Lunsford, who was shot seven times during the attack and has warned against turning the execution into a spectacle.

Religious leaders have also objected. Archbishop Paul Coakley, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, condemned the proposed broadcast and urged the administration to reconsider. Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s secretary of state, similarly criticized the idea of making an execution available for public viewing.

The debate has also raised questions about the precedent such a broadcast would establish. Although executions have historically been witnessed by designated officials, relatives and other authorized observers, the Pentagon’s proposal would make Hasan’s death available to a potentially worldwide audience.

The military has conducted no executions since Army Private John A. Bennett was hanged at Fort Leavenworth in April 1961. Its last known execution by firing squad occurred in November 1945.

For now, the December 3 execution remains scheduled, while the question of whether the public will be able to watch it awaits Trump’s final decision.

{Matzav.com}

Vice President JD Vance said that U.S. Ambassador to Greece Kimberly Guilfoyle should face consequences if allegations that she sought $100,000 from a political donor in exchange for access to senior Trump administration officials are substantiated, while emphasizing that the accusations must be investigated before any judgment is reached.

Speaking to reporters in Ohio on Friday, Vance addressed the growing controversy surrounding Guilfoyle, a longtime Trump ally and former fiancée of Donald Trump Jr., after reports surfaced alleging that she asked Republican donor Eric Deters to help pay off a substantial American Express balance shortly before her Senate confirmation hearing in July 2025.

“Look, these are allegations, and what I always say is: we don’t try people in the court of public opinion. We try people in a court of law,” Vance said.

The vice president cautioned against treating the reported text messages as proof of wrongdoing, pointing out that the claims have yet to be established.

“You don’t take messages that people allegedly had between one person or another, or one person’s story, and say, ‘Oh, because of that, Kimberly Guilfoyle is, is guilty.’ I think that’s absurd,” Vance said. “Let’s actually see what the facts are. Let’s see what the truth is.”

He then made clear that proven misconduct would warrant accountability.

“And obviously, if there was something bad that happened, then people have to suffer consequences for it,” he added.

The controversy began after The Wall Street Journal reported that Guilfoyle had allegedly requested that Deters transfer $100,000 directly to American Express to settle her credit card debt. The communications, reportedly exchanged through the encrypted messaging service Signal, also allegedly involved offers to help Deters obtain access to influential figures in President Trump’s administration.

According to messages subsequently obtained by other news organizations, Guilfoyle pressed Deters to make the payment on July 3, 2025, just six days before her Senate confirmation hearing.

“Honey please I need you to get this done for me today,” one message attributed to Guilfoyle stated.

Other purported messages suggested that Guilfoyle wanted to avoid creating a written record of their financial dealings. In one exchange, she allegedly warned Deters that documenting their arrangement could jeopardize her diplomatic appointment.

“You’ll literally cost me my ambassadorship,” she reportedly wrote.

Deters, a longtime Trump supporter and former congressional candidate from Kentucky, has alleged that Guilfoyle offered to use her political connections to assist him with various matters if he provided the financial assistance. He told NBC News that he understood the proposed arrangement as an exchange of money for political favors.

“She was so desperate for that $100,000. It was a quid pro quo,” Deters said.

He further claimed that Guilfoyle had indicated she could help him obtain access to prominent administration figures and other influential individuals associated with President Trump.

Deters has said he ultimately declined to make the payment. The allegations remain disputed, and no finding of wrongdoing against Guilfoyle has been established.

An attorney representing Guilfoyle has challenged the authenticity of the messages without publicly specifying which portions were allegedly inaccurate. Another explanation offered by her legal team was that money was owed to Guilfoyle in connection with speaking engagements, an account Deters has disputed.

The controversy has also drawn the attention of federal investigators. NBC News reported Friday that the State Department’s Office of Inspector General is investigating Guilfoyle and the U.S. Embassy in Greece, citing two individuals familiar with the matter. The existence of an investigation does not establish that the allegations are true.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who was visiting Greece as the controversy unfolded, pushed back against reporters seeking an immediate response to the allegations. Rubio argued that the administration should have an opportunity to review the information before reaching conclusions.

“We don’t conduct these things in a press conference on a tarmac in a foreign country because you wrote a story or somebody else wrote a story because some source gave it to you,” Rubio said.

“I don’t even know if what you’re reporting is true,” he added.

Rubio also expressed frustration with expectations that officials immediately address allegations circulated through news reports before the underlying material has been examined.

Vance, meanwhile, rejected the suggestion that the alleged arrangement reflected accepted practices within the administration. Asked whether the accusations represented how the Trump administration conducts business, he responded, “certainly not.”

The allegations have intensified scrutiny of Guilfoyle’s tenure as ambassador, particularly because of her longstanding personal and political connections to the Trump family. A former Fox News personality and prominent Trump campaign surrogate, Guilfoyle was nominated to represent the United States in Greece and subsequently confirmed by the Senate.

President Trump has also been asked about the controversy, describing the accusations as “too bad” without publicly clarifying whether Guilfoyle continues to enjoy his full support.

Vance made his latest remarks during a visit to Ohio, where he cast his ballot ahead of the November midterm elections and participated in Republican campaign events supporting Senator Jon Husted and gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy.

{Matzav.com}

A Palestinian museum with extensive connections to British government-funded institutions and cultural organizations is facing accusations of glorifying some of the most notorious terrorists responsible for murdering Israeli civilians, raising questions about Britain’s willingness to condemn Palestinian terrorism while imposing sanctions on Israelis over alleged violence in Yehudah and Shomron.

The Palestinian Museum, established in 2016 in Birzeit, operates both a physical museum and an extensive digital archive containing photographs, posters, historical documents, and educational materials. Among its holdings are materials honoring individuals responsible for deadly terrorist attacks, including the 1978 Coastal Road massacre, the murder of an Israeli family in Nahariya, and attacks that killed scores of Israeli civilians.

The controversy was highlighted by Susie Dym, a London-born spokesperson for the Israeli organization Mattot Arim, who accused British authorities of applying a double standard in their treatment of Israel and Palestinian institutions. Dym pointed to Britain’s sanctions against certain Israelis while maintaining cultural and institutional relationships with a museum whose collections include material celebrating convicted terrorists and perpetrators of mass-casualty attacks.

The museum’s online collection includes a poster featuring Dalal Mughrabi, who led the March 1978 Coastal Road terrorist attack in Israel. During the assault, terrorists seized a bus and murdered 38 people, including 13 children and an American photographer, Gail Rubin, according to commonly cited accounts of the massacre. The museum’s description of Mughrabi identifies her as a “Martyr of the Palestinian Revolution“.

Additional material in the museum’s digital archive includes photographs of a kindergarten and school named in Mughrabi’s honor, along with several other images of the terrorist. The continued commemoration of Mughrabi has long been a source of controversy because of the scale of the massacre she helped carry out.

The museum’s materials have also appeared on other websites promoting Palestinian nationalism. One article published by Islamicity.org reproduced a Mughrabi poster attributed to the museum and described her actions in celebratory terms.

The article stated: “Dalal’s group hijacked a bus … 39 Israelis were killed…. [Dalal] inspired thousands of young Palestinian and Lebanese women to follow in her footsteps…. This month, and every March, Palestinians commemorate a Palestinian heroine who sacrificed herself for her country.”

Another figure represented in the museum’s collection is Samir Kuntar, the Lebanese terrorist responsible for one of Israel’s most horrific attacks. Kuntar participated in a 1979 terrorist raid in Nahariya in which members of the Haran family were murdered.

The museum’s archive contains portraits of Kuntar during his imprisonment in Beersheba. Even the left-wing Israeli newspaper Haaretz described his actions as “one of the most traumatic terror attacks in Israeli history”.

Smadar Haran, whose husband Danny and four-year-old daughter Einat were murdered in the attack, previously recounted the brutality of the assault.

She described how the terrorists took her husband and daughter “down to the beach. There, according to eyewitnesses, one of them shot Danny in front of Einat…. Then he smashed my little girl’s skull in against a rock with his rifle butt. That terrorist was Samir Kuntar.”

Kuntar was subsequently released in a 2008 prisoner exchange between Israel and Hezbollah, a decision that generated considerable controversy because of the murders for which he had been convicted.

The museum also maintains a collection dedicated to Marwan Barghouti, the imprisoned Palestinian leader convicted in Israel in connection with five murders committed during the Second Intifada.

In its description of the collection, the museum declares: “Marwan al-Barghouthi is a Palestinian freedom fighter… a symbol of the Palestinian Revolution and the Palestinian National Liberation Movement.”

The archive includes photographs showing Barghouti alongside other imprisoned Palestinian militants. His portrayal as a revolutionary figure stands in sharp contrast to his criminal convictions in Israel.

Other materials commemorate Yahya Ayyash, the Hamas bombmaker commonly known as the Engineer, who played a central role in organizing suicide bombings against Israeli civilians during the 1990s.

A poster produced by a Birzeit University student organization marks the 12th anniversary of what it calls Ayyash’s “murder” by Israel. Ayyash was responsible for developing explosives used in numerous terrorist attacks that killed approximately 100 Israelis and wounded hundreds more.

Another poster commemorates Khalil al-Wazir, better known as Abu Jihad, a senior PLO terrorist commander linked to attacks that killed large numbers of Israelis.

The poster identifies him as ‘The Heroic Shaheed, The Commander Abu Jihad, Martyr of the War for Independence’.

According to the museum, the item belongs to its “permanent collection” and is among the “documents that form an important part of the history of the Palestinian revolution”.

Abu Jihad was implicated in planning and directing attacks that killed at least 125 Israelis, including the 1978 Coastal Road massacre.

The archive also preserves a photograph of the grave of Ali Hassan Salameh, a senior Black September operative associated with the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre, in which 11 Israeli athletes and coaches were murdered.

The photograph identifies the burial location as “at the Cemetery of the Shaheeds”, using the Arabic term for martyrs.

Although museums routinely preserve controversial historical material for educational and documentary purposes, critics argue that the language used in several of these collections goes beyond neutral historical presentation and portrays perpetrators of terrorist atrocities as national heroes.

Particular concern has been raised about the museum’s educational activities and its relationships with Palestinian schools.

The institution operates a Teachers’ Programme intended to connect its exhibits and digital collections with classroom instruction. According to its published description, the initiative “is based on creating a link between teachers, schools, and the museum” through “school research projects that link the curriculum and the knowledge provided by the museum through its … digital spaces.”

Its broader Education Programme “encourages children… bringing the museum’s culture to the new generation”.

The museum also works with the Palestinian Ministry of Education and has reported receiving nearly 100 visits annually from government schools.

Dym argues that these educational partnerships make the museum’s presentation of convicted terrorists and individuals responsible for mass murder particularly troubling, given the potential for children to encounter such material in an institutional setting.

The controversy also extends to the museum’s connections with British organizations.

The Palestinian Museum is a major initiative of Taawon, also known as the Welfare Association, a Palestinian nonprofit organization involved in humanitarian, cultural, and development projects.

A British organization operating under the Taawon name is registered with the Charity Commission for England and Wales under charity number 1020238. Its charitable status provides access to tax benefits under applicable British law, although the existence of those benefits does not by itself establish that British taxpayers directly financed any particular museum exhibit.

The British Council, Britain’s international organization for cultural relations and educational opportunities, has also been identified by the museum among its supporters.

King Charles III serves as patron of the British Council, which operates under a royal charter and receives funding from the British government alongside income from its other activities.

The museum has additionally identified support from the British government’s Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, raising questions about the nature and extent of official British financial involvement.

British cultural institutions have participated in projects with the museum as well.

The British Library, the United Kingdom’s national library, collaborated with the Palestinian Museum on a project called “Conservation for Digitisation”, involving the preservation and digitization of historical material.

In 2022, the museum also established a textile conservation studio through cooperation with London’s Victoria and Albert Museum, another prominent institution that receives British government funding.

Officials involved in that initiative discussed Palestinian embroidery and the political symbolism of its colors, including “colour schemes of red, green, black and white – the colours of the Palestinian flag”, which they characterized as “an embroidered message of resistance”.

The museum’s first director general, Mahmoud Hawari, also had professional ties to Britain’s cultural establishment, having served as a lead curator at the British Museum.

Dym questioned whether officials involved in these British partnerships were familiar with the museum’s online holdings and the terminology used to describe terrorists responsible for murdering Israeli civilians.

The dispute comes against the backdrop of Britain’s increasingly restrictive policies toward certain Israeli individuals and organizations in Yehudah and Shomron.

British authorities have imposed sanctions on Israeli individuals and entities accused of involvement in violence against Palestinians, while also taking measures targeting certain settlement-related activities. Those actions have been defended by British officials as responses to alleged human rights violations and threats to regional stability.

Dym rejects the legal and political arguments underpinning those measures. She cites the writings of Professor Eugene Rostow, a former dean of Yale Law School, who argued that Jewish settlement rights in territories captured by Israel in 1967 were protected by the international legal framework, including Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

That interpretation remains disputed, with much of the international community maintaining that Israeli settlements in the territories violate international law, a position Israel contests.

For Dym, however, the central issue is the contrast between Britain’s readiness to penalize Israelis accused of misconduct and its continued association with Palestinian cultural institutions whose archives contain material commemorating perpetrators of deadly terrorist attacks.

The museum’s defenders could argue that preserving posters, photographs, and political documents is part of the legitimate work of recording Palestinian history. The criticism, however, focuses particularly on descriptions that refer to convicted terrorists as martyrs, heroes, and freedom fighters, rather than merely documenting their historical activities.

The extent to which British financial assistance or institutional cooperation has directly supported the specific exhibits and digital materials identified by Dym remains an important distinction. The existence of a partnership does not necessarily mean that a British organization endorses every item in the museum’s collection.

Nevertheless, Dym maintains that British institutions should be held accountable for their relationships with organizations that present terrorists in celebratory terms, especially while London continues to pursue punitive measures against Israelis.

Her criticism ultimately raises a question for British authorities: whether the government will examine its institutional and financial relationships with the Palestinian Museum in light of the materials identified in its archive, or allow those partnerships to continue without further scrutiny.

Additional research confirmed a particularly significant detail: a British Council cultural preservation grant of approximately £152,000 funded a project involving the Palestinian Museum and British Library. The grant supported the preservation and digitization of roughly 3,000 historical documents. A separate $484,298 grant from the ALIPH Foundation supported the museum’s textile conservation partnership with the Victoria and Albert Museum. These documented funding arrangements establish the British institutional connections, although they do not establish that British funds paid for the specific terrorist-related archive entries.

{Matzav.com}

More than 37 years after her husband was murdered while protecting the community of Har Bracha in Shomron, Leah Ziv-Farag is demanding that the IDF remove a monument honoring the terrorist responsible for his death, saying the memorial’s presence near the scene of the attack has compounded her family’s suffering for decades.

Her husband, Yaakov Farag, was killed in December 1988 while guarding land belonging to Har Bracha. Following the murder, the terrorist seized Farag’s weapon and used it to open fire on IDF soldiers.

Farag left behind his wife, who was pregnant at the time, and their young children, who were forced to grow up without their father.

The terrorist, identified as Hamdan al-Najjar, is commemorated by a monument located a short distance from where Farag was murdered. The family is now calling on the military to dismantle the structure, arguing that honoring the perpetrator of a deadly terrorist attack at the very location where he committed the murder is an intolerable affront to the victims.

Ziv-Farag addressed her appeal to Maj. Gen. Avi Bluth, commander of the IDF’s Central Command, describing the anguish her family has endured since the murder and the additional pain of seeing her husband’s killer memorialized nearby.

“It is difficult to put into words the feelings of a family whose loved one was murdered in a particular place, only to find a short distance away a monument commemorating the person who took his life,” she wrote. “A monument is a symbol. It conveys a message to future generations. What message do we want to pass on to our children? Do we commemorate someone who took a life, or the man who was murdered while defending his home, his land and his family?”

The family maintains that the monument does more than commemorate an individual. By publicly honoring a terrorist who murdered a Jewish resident and subsequently attacked Israeli soldiers, they argue, it conveys a message that glorifies violence and disregards the suffering of the victims.

The appeal has also drawn support from Knesset Member Tzvi Sukkot, who has urged the military to act without delay.

Sukkot, who chairs the Knesset Education Committee and its subcommittee dealing with Yehuda and Shomron, pointed to recent IDF operations aimed at dismantling monuments honoring terrorists and their supporters throughout the region.

He argued that the same policy should be applied to the memorial honoring al-Najjar, particularly given its proximity to the location of Farag’s murder.

“There is no justification for commemorating the murderer of a Jew, certainly not at the site of the attack where he took the life of a man who simply wanted to protect his country’s land,” Sukkot said. “The fight against the commemoration of terrorism must be consistent and determined to the end.”

Additional reporting reveals that the terrorist also killed an IDF soldier, Cpl. Arthur (Alter) Herzig, and wounded two others during the 1988 attack.

The monument was previously targeted by MK Tzvi Sukkot in August, although its present condition remains unclear.

{Matzav.com}

Columbia University has apologized after a dining hall displayed signs reading “October 7th Blush Sauce” on the third anniversary of Hamas’s massacre in Israel, triggering widespread outrage and renewed criticism of the university’s handling of antisemitism. School officials say the wording was an inadvertent menu-template mistake, not an intentional reference to the terrorist attacks.

The signs appeared Wednesday at the pasta station in John Jay Dining Hall, where blush sauce was among the lunch offerings. Photographs spread rapidly across social media, with critics questioning how the date of the October 7, 2023, massacre, in which approximately 1,200 people were murdered and 251 were taken hostage, could appear beside a food item on the anniversary.

The university’s dining department said the sauce had been scheduled for that day and that a date included in the staff’s working menu was mistakenly carried over to the printed display. Vicki Dunn, assistant vice president of Columbia Dining, said the signs were removed promptly after the problem came to light.

“This was an unfortunate mistake and was not intended as a reference to the events of October 7,” Dunn said. “The blush sauce was scheduled to be served, and when that information was copied into the menu template, the date was accidentally left in. Our staff took the signs down as soon as the mistake was identified. We are sorry for the confusion and concern this caused.”

Dunn said the department would add a further check before menus are displayed in dining facilities.

“Moving forward, Columbia Dining will also have a team member review all menus before they are posted,” she added.

As criticism mounted online, Columbia released its own explanation, reiterating that the date was not meant to allude to the Hamas attack.

“This was a mistake, not a reference to the events of October 7. The date was accidentally left in when the day’s meal information was copied into the menu template. The signs were removed as soon as the error was caught, and we’re sorry for the concern and confusion this caused.”

The student newspaper, the Columbia Daily Spectator, reported that two signs at the John Jay pasta station carried the wording. It also reported that blush sauce was the only sauce labeled with a date, an unusual detail that contributed to the online reaction. A photograph posted by a New York correspondent for Haaretz drew more than one million views by late Wednesday evening, according to the student paper.

The episode unfolded on an already tense anniversary for Columbia, which has faced years of controversy over anti-Israel demonstrations and allegations that Jewish students have been subjected to harassment and intimidation on campus.

In February 2024, antisemitic flyers showing a skunk with an Israeli flag appeared at the university. That spring, anti-Israel activists erected a protest encampment, setting off a confrontation over campus safety, protest restrictions and the university’s response to antisemitism.

During the protests, demonstrators were recorded telling Jewish counterprotesters that the October 7 massacre would happen “every day” and “10,000” times. In another incident, a protester displayed a sign appearing to call on Hamas’s armed wing to target Jewish students.

A Jewish student wearing a kippah was punched near the university during an encounter with an anti-Israel protester in December 2024. In May 2025, masked demonstrators occupied Butler Library, and Columbia subsequently suspended or otherwise disciplined dozens of participants.

The Trump administration also took action against Columbia, accusing the university of failing to protect Jewish students and suspending $400 million in federal research funding. The university later reached a settlement with the administration over federal allegations involving antisemitism and other civil-rights concerns.

The third anniversary of the massacre brought another round of demonstrations outside Columbia. Roughly 100 anti-Israel protesters assembled near the campus gates Wednesday, with participants chanting “Globalize the intifada,” “No peace on stolen land,” and “Every fascist state will fall.” Others shouted “Palestine is Arab” in Arabic.

The protest took place outside the university gates on a public sidewalk. Columbia’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, which the school suspended in 2023, was among the groups associated with the anniversary demonstration.

The same day, Columbia/Barnard Hillel arranged an installation of approximately 1,200 white chairs to commemorate those murdered on October 7, and members of the university community gathered at Low Library for an evening memorial.

{Matzav.com}

LISTEN:

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

LISTEN: