Matzav

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has declared that Itamar Ben Gvir will neither become Israel’s next defense minister nor retain his current position as national security minister if Likud forms the next government, triggering an angry confrontation with Otzma Yehudit just days before Israel’s October 27 Knesset elections.

Netanyahu’s announcement represents a significant blow to Ben Gvir, who has made securing the Defense Ministry a central demand in his negotiations over a future coalition. It also raises questions about whether Otzma Yehudit, currently a key partner in Netanyahu’s governing bloc, will have a place in the next government.

The prime minister first addressed Ben Gvir’s demands during an interview with Army Radio on Wednesday, October 14, when he insisted that the Defense Ministry would remain under Likud control regardless of the national security minister’s ambitions.

“I know he wants it, but he doesn’t decide,” Netanyahu said, making clear that Ben Gvir would not determine the distribution of senior cabinet positions.

Netanyahu went further during a campaign appearance in Acre on Thursday, announcing that Likud would retain control of the Defense Ministry, the National Security Ministry and the Education Ministry in any government he establishes following the election.

The declaration was especially significant because Ben Gvir currently heads the National Security Ministry, which oversees the Israel Police and other internal security responsibilities. Netanyahu’s remarks effectively ruled out allowing him to continue in that position while also rejecting his demand for the defense portfolio.

Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Yechiel Leiter, subsequently reiterated the prime minister’s position during an interview with CNN, reinforcing the message that Netanyahu intends to keep the country’s principal security ministries in Likud hands.

Ben Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit party responded with an unusually sharp statement, accusing Netanyahu of preparing to abandon his existing right-wing coalition partners in favor of an agreement with former IDF chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot, who heads the opposition Yashar party.

“The cat is out of the bag,” Otzma Yehudit declared, arguing that Netanyahu’s announcement revealed a broader political strategy to exclude Ben Gvir from the next government.

The party said the prime minister’s statements strengthened its suspicion that “a decision has been made to exclude Ben Gvir and Otzma Yehudit from the next coalition, bring in Eisenkot instead, and hand these portfolios over to the left.”

Otzma Yehudit also issued a direct warning to Netanyahu that the composition of the next government would ultimately be determined by the election results rather than by his campaign declarations.

“Dear Prime Minister, only the people will decide,” the party said. “Strong Ben Gvir, strong Israel!”

The accusation that Netanyahu is preparing a coalition agreement with Eisenkot has not been substantiated. Both Netanyahu and Eisenkot have publicly denied that they are seeking to establish a unity government together.

Nevertheless, Ben Gvir has repeatedly suggested that Netanyahu is considering such an arrangement, warning that it would betray the expectations of right-wing voters who want the next government to maintain the policies of the existing coalition.

The dispute intensified after Ben Gvir announced in September that he would demand the Defense Ministry as a condition for joining another Netanyahu-led government.

He argued that Israel’s military leadership required a fundamental change in its strategic approach and said he wanted to introduce a more aggressive security doctrine focused on achieving decisive victories against the country’s enemies.

Ben Gvir also proposed appointing former Likud lawmaker Tally Gotliv, who joined Otzma Yehudit ahead of the election and occupies the second position on its candidate list, as justice minister.

Under his proposed arrangement, Otzma Yehudit MK Yitzhak Wasserlauf would succeed him as national security minister, allowing the party to retain control of that portfolio while expanding its influence into the Defense and Justice ministries.

Gotliv has said that, if appointed justice minister, she would seek the removal of Israel’s attorney general and pursue changes to the authority of the State Attorney’s Office.

Ben Gvir, meanwhile, has outlined a defense agenda that includes changes to the IDF’s rules of engagement, increased compensation for combat soldiers and revisions to the military’s ethical guidelines.

He has also called for expanded measures against Palestinian terrorist organizations, including disarming the Palestinian Authority and pursuing the arrest of senior figures accused of supporting terrorism.

During an interview with Walla on Thursday, Ben Gvir dismissed Netanyahu’s insistence that the Defense Ministry would remain with Likud, suggesting that the prime minister had made similar declarations in the past only to reverse course.

“He also said in the past that I won’t be a minister, and we saw what happened. I will get more seats, and I will be defense minister,” Ben Gvir said.

His remarks reflected his belief that a strong election showing for Otzma Yehudit would give him sufficient bargaining power to demand a senior ministry despite Netanyahu’s public objections.

Ben Gvir has also invoked his role in previous security cabinet deliberations to argue that his positions have influenced major Israeli military decisions.

He claimed that following the September 2024 elimination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, Netanyahu personally thanked him for pressing the government to approve the operation.

According to Ben Gvir, the prime minister told him, “Thank you for insisting in the limited cabinet that this would go ahead.”

The confrontation comes amid broader tensions between Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition partners over the distribution of votes within their political bloc.

Earlier this month, Netanyahu appeared alongside Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich at a conference in Yerushalayim aimed at mobilizing religious Zionist voters ahead of the election.

The gathering, held October 8 under the banner of strengthening the right-wing camp, brought together prominent rabbonim, yeshiva leaders and political activists.

Ben Gvir was not invited to participate, a decision that intensified suspicions within Otzma Yehudit that Netanyahu was favoring Smotrich’s Religious Zionist Party at its expense.

Likud and Smotrich’s party also signed a surplus-vote agreement, an electoral arrangement that can help parties maximize their representation in the Knesset.

Otzma Yehudit complained that Likud had declined to enter a similar agreement with Ben Gvir’s party.

The political disagreements have become increasingly public as the election approaches, with Ben Gvir accusing Netanyahu of trying to attract voters away from Otzma Yehudit rather than focusing on expanding the right-wing bloc.

Speaking earlier in the week at a political conference organized by Ynet and Yedioth Ahronoth, Ben Gvir urged Netanyahu to seek additional support from voters currently backing Eisenkot rather than competing with his existing coalition allies.

“Instead of taking votes from me, go take votes from Eisenkot,” Ben Gvir said. “Don’t make that mistake. The bloc must be a fully right-wing bloc.”

He continued by warning Netanyahu against undermining Otzma Yehudit while simultaneously exploring potential arrangements with parties outside the existing coalition.

“Prime minister, do you want to form a right-wing government? Do you want to form a government that belongs to us? Go bring votes from outside the bloc, from Eisenkot. Don’t fight me. Don’t take votes from me.”

The approaching election has increased the importance of these disputes because neither Netanyahu’s political allies nor the principal opposition parties have demonstrated a clear path to securing the 61 Knesset seats required for a governing majority.

Recent surveys have indicated that both blocs could fall short of an outright majority, leaving smaller parties and post-election negotiations with a potentially decisive role in determining the next government.

That uncertainty could give Ben Gvir leverage if Netanyahu requires Otzma Yehudit’s support to assemble a coalition, even after publicly ruling out granting him the ministries he wants.

At the same time, Netanyahu’s insistence that Likud retain the major security portfolios suggests that he intends to limit the influence of coalition partners over defense and internal security policy.

The confrontation has also created an opening for Eisenkot, whose Yashar party has emerged as a significant force in the opposition.

Eisenkot, who previously served as IDF chief of staff, has presented himself as an experienced security figure capable of replacing Netanyahu and has sharply criticized the government’s handling of the war against Hamas.

During a campaign appearance near the Gaza border on Thursday, Eisenkot pledged that, if elected prime minister, he would dismantle Hamas’s military capabilities and remove the terrorist organization from power in Gaza within 18 months.

Netanyahu’s Likud party responded by questioning whether Eisenkot could implement such a policy while relying on the support of Arab political parties.

Despite their public disagreements, speculation about a possible post-election arrangement between Netanyahu and Eisenkot has continued, particularly because of the difficulty both political blocs may face in assembling a majority.

For Ben Gvir, the immediate challenge is to demonstrate that Otzma Yehudit will emerge from the October 27 election with enough seats to force Netanyahu to reconsider his position.

{Matzav.com}

Mass demonstrations across France erupted into widespread violence Saturday, October 17, as rioters looted luxury boutiques, set fire to government buildings and attacked police officers in several major cities. The unrest, which followed nationwide protests over the rising cost of living and deteriorating public services, reportedly left dozens of people injured and resulted in more than 1,200 arrests.

According to figures cited by Israeli news outlet Kikar HaShabbat, approximately 550,000 people participated in demonstrations across France, while protest organizers estimated attendance at as many as 800,000. The demonstrations were supported by far-left political groups, with additional participants from immigrant communities and other protest movements.

Although many participants joined organized marches to protest economic conditions and government policies, violent groups reportedly exploited the large gatherings to attack businesses, government offices and security personnel. Police faced assaults involving bricks, stones and fireworks fired directly at officers, while fires and extensive property damage were reported in numerous cities.

The French Interior Ministry reportedly counted approximately 60 injured members of the security forces during an earlier stage of the unrest, with subsequent reports placing the number closer to 150. At least two injured officers were reportedly evacuated unconscious. By late Saturday night, police had announced more than 1,200 arrests nationwide.

Among the most serious incidents was a devastating fire at the historic city hall in Limoges, central France, where masked rioters allegedly stormed the municipal building after a demonstration had ended.

The structure, constructed in 1883, sustained extensive damage after attackers reportedly set municipal police vehicles ablaze, smashed windows and forced their way into the building.

Flames spread through part of the city hall and reached the roof, prompting firefighters to undertake a major operation to prevent the blaze from consuming additional sections of the historic landmark.

Later in the evening, the prefect of Haute-Vienne reportedly announced that much of the building had been destroyed. Footage circulating from the scene showed portions of the roof collapsing as residents gathered nearby and watched firefighters battle the flames.

One municipal employee reportedly broke down in tears upon seeing the destruction. Another woman at the scene described the devastation as a catastrophe that was impossible to comprehend or accept.

Additional vehicles were reportedly burned in Limoges, while businesses in the city center were broken into and looted. Clashes also occurred near the prefecture building, where rioters allegedly threw objects and launched fireworks at police, prompting officers to deploy crowd-control measures.

The violence extended to Bordeaux, where the busy Sainte-Catherine shopping district became a focal point of looting and arson.

Groups of rioters reportedly smashed their way into commercial establishments, removed merchandise and caused extensive damage to stores along the city’s main shopping streets.

Videos shared on social media purportedly showed luxury retailers, including Dior and Louis Vuitton, being targeted, with merchandise stolen from stores during the disorder.

One of the most serious commercial incidents involved a Decathlon sporting goods store, which was reportedly ransacked and set on fire. Flames spread to the building’s exterior, while nearby streets were left littered with merchandise, debris and spent tear-gas canisters.

A separate group of rioters allegedly attacked the official residence of the prefect of Gironde, forcing open an entrance, setting a fire in the courtyard and entering the compound.

Authorities reportedly dispatched RAID, the French police’s specialized tactical intervention unit, to respond to the assault on the government property.

Officials in Bordeaux reported 23 injuries, including 15 members of the security forces and eight protesters. Police arrested 55 people in connection with the disturbances.

In Lyon, France’s third-largest city, demonstrators and police clashed as fires and vandalism spread through the city center.

The historic tourist information office at Place Bellecour was reportedly set ablaze, while windows were smashed and businesses damaged elsewhere in the city.

Police deployed tear gas, crowd-control grenades and water cannons against groups involved in the disturbances. Several protest marches broke up as confrontations intensified.

Marseille also experienced attacks on public buildings, including an assault on city hall.

According to the report, groups of demonstrators breached barriers protecting the municipal building and entered the premises, where windows were broken and property damaged.

A statue of Marianne, the female figure representing the French Republic, was reportedly knocked over during the intrusion.

Marseille Mayor Benoît Payan said the physical damage to city hall was relatively limited, although the breach of such an important government building underscored the seriousness of the unrest.

Elsewhere in Marseille, garbage containers were set on fire, and police facilities reportedly came under attack.

In the northern city of Lille, demonstrators allegedly smashed glass doors to enter city hall, vandalizing sections of the building as hundreds of protesters confronted police in surrounding streets.

Authorities also reported attempted incursions into municipal buildings in Calais and Angers, as well as attacks on police stations in Marseille and Brest.

In Paris, violent confrontations were reported around Place de la République, where masked individuals threw stones and fireworks toward police officers, set fires and damaged commercial properties.

Security forces responded with tear gas and other crowd-control equipment as they attempted to disperse the groups responsible for the violence. A food store was also reportedly broken into and merchandise stolen during the disturbances.

In Nice, on France’s Mediterranean coast, approximately a dozen businesses were reportedly vandalized or looted, including clothing retailers, electronics stores and sporting goods outlets.

Among the businesses identified as targets were JD Sports, Micromania and Decathlon, along with a Yamaha motorcycle dealership.

Rioters also reportedly damaged bus stops and three municipal police vehicles. Along the Promenade des Anglais, officers confronted groups throwing stones and other objects.

Authorities reported approximately 40 arrests in Nice and injuries to around 10 demonstrators. One individual was seriously injured by shattered glass while allegedly attempting to break a storefront window.

Another serious injury occurred in Saint-Étienne, where a teenage protester suffered severe damage to his hand during a confrontation with police.

French authorities opened an investigation involving the IGPN, the agency responsible for investigating allegations of police misconduct, to determine the circumstances surrounding the injury. Additional reporting indicated that the injury occurred after the protester picked up a grenade deployed by police.

French President Emmanuel Macron condemned the violence and promised that those responsible for attacking public institutions, businesses and security personnel would be held accountable.

In a statement issued following the unrest, Macron declared that violence had no place in the French Republic and warned that individuals responsible for vandalism, looting and attacks on government buildings would face prosecution.

He also expressed support for police and other security personnel tasked with protecting the right to demonstrate peacefully, while condemning those whose actions prevented lawful protesters from making their voices heard.

Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu issued a similarly forceful condemnation, announcing that approximately 1,200 people had been arrested and 150 police officers and gendarmes injured.

Lecornu described the scale of the violence as extraordinary and said the relatively limited number of more serious injuries was fortunate given the intensity of the confrontations.

The prime minister accused violent extremists and criminal elements of exploiting legitimate public dissatisfaction to attack government institutions. He said the administration would not allow intimidation or destruction to determine its response to the country’s political and economic challenges.

Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez also attributed responsibility for some of the disturbances to elements of the far left, while distinguishing the violent groups from the much larger number of people who participated in peaceful demonstrations.

The protests brought together a broad coalition that included students, labor unions, Yellow Vest activists, environmental campaigners and left-wing political organizations.

Their grievances centered on rising household expenses, declining purchasing power, shortages in public education and dissatisfaction with government spending priorities.

The demonstrations followed growing opposition to proposed reductions in public spending as France attempts to address its budget deficit. The government’s plans for the 2027 budget include approximately 43 billion euros in spending cuts, a proposal that has intensified criticism from unions and opposition groups.

The unrest also unfolded against the backdrop of France’s approaching 2027 presidential election, with competing political movements seeking to capitalize on public frustration over economic conditions.

Far-right leader Marine Le Pen accused the radical left of encouraging disorder, while Jean-Luc Mélenchon, a leading figure on the French left, defended the right to demonstrate and criticized aspects of the police response.

In Limoges, the destruction of the historic city hall emerged as one of the most striking symbols of the violence. Local prefect Maurice Barate said the building’s roof had collapsed onto the floors below, with the western wing among the few sections to escape the worst damage. Approximately two-thirds of the exterior had reportedly been destroyed.

The 143-year-old building, inspired architecturally by Paris City Hall, was among the most prominent public landmarks damaged during the nationwide unrest. Firefighters continued assessing the destruction as authorities began investigating those responsible for the blaze.

{Matzav.com}

A former technology official involved in Likud’s election operations has submitted a sworn affidavit to Israel’s Supreme Court alleging that a new application developed for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s party could enable the collection of information about voters at polling stations, potentially circumventing restrictions imposed by the court.

The allegations, reported Sunday by The Times of Israel, come just nine days before Israel’s October 27 Knesset elections and raise questions about voter privacy, election monitoring and the use of digital technology by political parties.

At the center of the controversy is Victory 26, a campaign application designed to help Likud organize its election operations and mobilize supporters.

David Rechter, who previously worked on the party’s voter-mobilization technology, claims in his affidavit that the application possesses capabilities that could allow party activists to collect and transmit information about individuals arriving at polling stations.

According to Rechter, those capabilities could undermine a recent Supreme Court ruling restricting the transfer of identifying information about voters.

The dispute centers on the distinction between legitimate election-day efforts to encourage supporters to vote and the collection of personal information about citizens participating in the democratic process.

Israeli political parties have long relied on sophisticated voter databases and election-day operations to identify supporters, track turnout and encourage registered voters to cast ballots.

However, the use of digital applications to gather information at polling stations has generated legal controversy over privacy protections and the possibility that political organizations could improperly monitor individual voters.

On September 17, Israel’s Supreme Court unanimously ruled that political party representatives stationed at polling places may not transmit information identifying individual voters who have cast ballots. The justices determined that the practice violated privacy protections and lacked a sufficient legal basis.

The ruling was considered a significant setback for Likud and the chareidi parties, which have traditionally relied on detailed turnout information to encourage supporters who had not yet voted to make their way to the polls.

Five days after the ruling, Likud distributed a message to campaign activists announcing Victory 26 and encouraging them to download the application.

Rechter, who served as a volunteer technology and voter-mobilization chief during Likud’s 2022 election campaign, claims that modern technology could enable campaign workers to bypass the court’s restrictions without manually entering prohibited information.

“The High Court ruling can easily be circumvented, whether by installing a dedicated app, opening a link, or simply exchanging ordinary WhatsApp messages, even without touching the cellphone,” Rechter wrote in his affidavit.

He explained that polling station officials are required to read aloud voters’ names and identification numbers during the verification process. A smartphone equipped with recording and artificial intelligence technology could potentially capture that information and transmit it to a campaign database.

According to Rechter, a party that knows the identity of its representative at a particular polling station could combine information obtained through a phone with existing voter records to determine precisely who had voted and when.

Such a system could provide political campaigns with real-time information about individual voters despite the court’s prohibition.

Rechter also described discussions during the 2022 election campaign about developing backup methods for collecting voter information if the widely used Elector application became unavailable.

“We were concerned that Elector would be targeted by Iranian cyberattacks on election day, so we prepared an alternative,” he said.

He explained that campaign officials considered using WhatsApp messages containing voter identification numbers to update central databases automatically.

That alternative system was never activated during the 2022 election, according to Rechter, because the existing application remained operational and there was no need to deploy the backup.

The Elector application itself had previously generated controversy over data security. In 2020, a security vulnerability exposed personal information from Israel’s voter registry, including identification numbers and telephone numbers belonging to millions of citizens.

The latest controversy has also focused on the Central Elections Committee’s decision to permit electronic devices inside polling stations for the purpose of transmitting general turnout figures.

Although the Supreme Court prohibited the transmission of information identifying individual voters, election officials have allowed parties to report numerical turnout data that does not reveal voters’ identities.

Critics argue that allowing smartphones to remain active inside polling stations could make it difficult to ensure that only permitted information is transmitted.

In correspondence concerning the matter, the Central Elections Committee’s legal adviser, Yifat Siminovsky, acknowledged that secretly recording and transcribing conversations inside polling stations without the knowledge of those involved could constitute illegal eavesdropping.

However, she previously rejected a request to prohibit smartphones entirely, concluding that the allegations presented at the time were insufficiently substantiated.

Rechter’s newly submitted affidavit is intended to provide additional evidence supporting renewed restrictions.

The document was submitted Sunday morning to the Supreme Court and the attorney general by attorney Yuval Yoaz, chairman of the Democracy Guard organization.

Federal authorities have arrested a 51-year-old Los Angeles man accused of threatening to carry out a mass-casualty attack against a Chabad-affiliated Jewish preschool and posting disturbing messages about burning synagogues, after investigators discovered materials allegedly intended for making Molotov cocktails inside his home.

The suspect, identified as Steven Carlos Duenas, a resident of the Los Feliz neighborhood of Los Angeles, was taken into custody by FBI agents during the early morning hours of October 2. The arrest followed an investigation into a series of threatening social media posts directed at Jewish institutions, including JEMS, a Jewish preschool affiliated with Chabad.

During a search of the residence Duenas shared with his mother, federal agents reportedly discovered materials that could be used to assemble incendiary devices. Among the items recovered was a glass bottle containing gasoline and fuel, which investigators believe was intended for use as a Molotov cocktail.

The investigation began after authorities became aware of several alarming messages Duenas allegedly published on X during the middle of September. The posts included explicit references to attacks on Jewish institutions, expressions of support for the Houthis and images suggesting preparations for violence.

In one particularly disturbing post, Duenas allegedly displayed a Molotov cocktail in front of a television showing footage of the destruction caused by the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center.

The accompanying message urged viewers, “Don’t just watch the war, take part in it.”

Investigators also examined a video he allegedly uploaded featuring music by the rock band R.E.M., accompanied by a message declaring, “I love my Houthi brothers.”

Other posts contained more direct threats against Jewish institutions. In one message, Duenas allegedly wrote, “Not enough synagogues have been burned.”

Another post reportedly referred to obtaining Tomahawk missiles through Facebook Marketplace and suggested using them to attack the preschool.

“I got some Tomahawk missiles on Facebook Marketplace, maybe I’ll bomb the preschool later,” he allegedly wrote.

The threats prompted federal investigators to examine whether Duenas was preparing to carry out an attack rather than merely posting inflammatory statements online. The discovery of materials associated with incendiary devices during the subsequent search heightened concerns about the seriousness of the alleged threats.

Following his arrest, Duenas appeared in federal court for a detention hearing. He was brought into the courtroom in handcuffs and reportedly wept during the proceedings.

His mother attended the hearing, and as Duenas was being escorted back into custody, he silently mouthed the words “I love you” in her direction.

The next hearing in his federal case has been scheduled for November 10.

Duenas’s mother, Maria Duenas, spoke with reporters about her son’s personal difficulties, describing what she characterized as a severe deterioration in his mental health.

According to his mother, Duenas has struggled with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and serious depression. She said that losing his job as a social worker for Los Angeles County, together with the breakdown of his marriage, had contributed to a profound personal crisis.

She also claimed that he developed serious problems involving alcohol and prescription medications following those setbacks.

Maria Duenas disputed the suggestion that her son harbored deeply rooted antisemitic beliefs, arguing that his threatening behavior should be understood in the context of his mental health difficulties.

She expressed hope that he would ultimately receive psychiatric treatment and rehabilitation rather than remain trapped in a worsening cycle of illness and substance abuse.

Additional reporting on the federal case indicates that prosecutors have charged Duenas in connection with threatening communications and possession of an illegal destructive device. The allegations remain before the court, and he has not been convicted.

The federal complaint reportedly identifies September 19 as a particularly significant date in the investigation, when Duenas allegedly published several posts combining antisemitic statements with references to incendiary weapons and the Chabad preschool.

One of those posts reportedly described the intended attack as a “mass incident,” language that alarmed investigators because it suggested the possibility of violence involving multiple victims.

JEMS Preschool operates under Chabad of Greater Los Feliz and serves young children, including toddlers as young as 18 months old. The institution is part of the local Chabad community’s educational programming.

The reported discovery of materials for an incendiary device during the FBI search added a physical-evidence component to the investigation, beyond the online statements that first drew attention to Duenas.

His mother also told reporters that the family had previously experienced tensions with Jewish neighbors over a shared fence, but maintained that her son had never discussed the disagreement in a manner that led her to believe he harbored antisemitic intentions.

Federal authorities have not publicly established that any attack was imminent or that Duenas had carried out violence against the preschool or another Jewish institution. The criminal proceedings are continuing, with his next court appearance scheduled for November 10.

{Matzav.com}

A 51-year-old Los Angeles man is facing serious criminal allegations after investigators reportedly uncovered evidence of a planned attack against a Jewish preschool affiliated with Chabad, including preparations involving an incendiary device and disturbing statements about carrying out a mass-casualty assault.

The suspect, Steven Carlos Duenas, was arrested on October 2 following an investigation into threats against Jewish institutions in the Los Angeles area. Details reported over the weekend have brought renewed attention to the case, particularly the alleged targeting of the JEMS preschool in the Los Feliz neighborhood.

According to prosecutors, investigators discovered materials believed to be intended for the construction of a Molotov cocktail, along with statements allegedly indicating an interest in attacking a Jewish educational institution.

The allegations have raised serious concerns because the reported target was a preschool attended by young children.

The case involves alleged preparations for violence rather than a completed attack. Authorities have not reported that an explosive or incendiary device was detonated at the school, and the allegations against Duenas have not been proven in court.

Investigators reportedly traced the threats to social media posts published in September. In one post dated September 19, Duenas allegedly displayed what appeared to be a Molotov cocktail against a television image of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center.

“Don’t simply watch the war, participate,” he wrote in a message accompanying the image.

Other posts attributed to Duenas expressed support for the Houthis, the Iranian-backed terrorist organization in Yemen. He reportedly referred to the group as his “homies” and declared that “not enough synagogues have been burned down.”

Federal agents raided the home Duenas shared with his mother in Los Feliz at approximately 4:30 a.m. on October 2. During the search, investigators reportedly recovered a glass bottle containing gasoline and other components prosecutors described as intended for use in a Molotov cocktail.

The investigation centered on threats against JEMS Preschool, an early-childhood education program operated by Chabad of Greater Los Feliz. The school serves children as young as 18 months and incorporates Jewish education and traditions into its curriculum.

The reported threats have drawn particular attention because of the young ages of the children attending the institution and the possibility that an incendiary attack could have caused numerous casualties.

Duenas appeared in federal court following his arrest and was ordered detained. During one court appearance, he reportedly cried while restrained in shackles and mouthed “I love you” to his mother before being taken back into custody.

His mother, Maria Duenas, told reporters that her son had experienced significant personal difficulties in recent years, including a divorce, the loss of his position as a Los Angeles County social worker, and struggles involving alcohol and prescription medications.

She also described a history of mental-health problems and disputed the suggestion that her son had been raised with hostility toward Jews.

According to his mother, the family had previously experienced a disagreement with Jewish neighbors over a shared fence, although she said her son had never discussed the dispute with her.

She expressed hope that he would receive psychiatric treatment and rehabilitation.

Duenas is being held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles, according to federal prison records. His next court appearance is scheduled for November 10.

{Matzav.com}

Rahm Emanuel is stepping up his political activity ahead of the 2028 presidential election, traveling through early primary states, appearing frequently on national television and offering Democrats a strategy for regaining power that puts him at odds with the party’s increasingly influential progressive wing.

The former White House chief of staff, Chicago mayor, congressman and U.S. ambassador to Japan has been making an unusually aggressive effort to shape the Democratic Party’s direction, even though the next presidential election remains more than two years away. His activities have fueled speculation that he intends to seek the party’s nomination while positioning himself as a pragmatic alternative to candidates associated with the Democratic left.

Emanuel returned to South Carolina this past week for his second visit in recent months, spending several days attending fundraisers and campaigning for Democratic candidates ahead of November’s midterm elections. South Carolina occupies a prominent place in the party’s presidential nominating calendar, making it an important destination for politicians considering a national campaign.

His travels have also taken him to Nevada, New Hampshire and Michigan, where he has appeared alongside Democratic candidates while making little effort to conceal his broader political interests. The appearances allow him to build relationships with party officials, donors and activists while presenting his ideas about how Democrats should approach the next presidential election.

Emanuel has simultaneously undertaken an extensive media campaign, securing considerably more television and interview appearances than many other Democrats whose names have surfaced as possible presidential contenders.

In recent weeks, he has appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” participated in a NewsNation town hall with Chris Cuomo, spoken on PBS’s “Overheard With Evan Smith” and sat for a two-hour conversation on Fox News personality Sean Hannity’s podcast.

Democratic strategist Eddie Vale said Emanuel’s relentless schedule reflects a politician who thrives on the constant demands of campaigning and political organizing.

“He loves the hustle, and he loves the game, and no one is likely to take more meetings or make more phone calls a day,” Vale said.

Political observers say Emanuel’s activities go well beyond the usual preliminary exploration associated with a potential presidential campaign. He is attempting to influence the Democratic Party’s national message at a time when its leadership and ideological direction remain unsettled.

One donor described Emanuel’s emerging role as “the Democratic consultant-in-chief,” reflecting his effort to provide strategic advice, advance policy proposals and establish himself as a leading voice in debates about the party’s future.

His approach, however, differs sharply from the priorities of some progressive Democrats, particularly as candidates associated with democratic socialism have gained visibility and support within portions of the party.

Emanuel has argued that Democrats should concentrate on delivering tangible policy changes rather than pursuing politically divisive confrontations with President Donald Trump.

During an interview this week on SiriusXM’s “The Briefing With Steve Scully,” Emanuel said Democrats should resist calls to impeach Trump if they gain control of the House of Representatives in November. Instead, he urged the party to advance ethics legislation and economic measures that voters could identify as concrete accomplishments.

“In 2026, in three weeks from now, the Republicans are going to lose the election. What the Democrats do in 2027 will determine whether we won the election by bringing change,” Emanuel told Scully. “An ethics package brings change. A raise in the minimum wage 20 bucks by 2030 is bringing change.

“You do impeachment, it’s just another food fight,” Emanuel added. “I’m offended by everything this president has done. He has literally turned the Oval Office into eBay on steroids. Get change. Deliver that.”

Emanuel’s comments reflect his belief that Democrats should use any congressional majority they secure to advance legislation rather than devote their political capital to an impeachment effort that could deepen partisan divisions.

Scully, who interviewed Emanuel, said the former Chicago mayor appears determined to establish his influence before the 2028 campaign formally begins.

Speaking with The Hill, Scully said Emanuel “wants to make sure his voice is heard” during the period when prospective candidates are beginning to establish their political identities.

“I think he would like to be president. I think he is trying to set the debate up for the party,” Scully said. “I think he’s trying to get ahead of the game to plant his flag in the more centrist wing of the party.”

Scully said Emanuel’s efforts extend beyond traditional Democratic strongholds. The former mayor has also traveled to Republican-leaning states, including Mississippi and Louisiana, in an apparent effort to demonstrate that Democrats can compete for voters outside their customary political base.

“He wants to lead that battle,” Scully said, adding that Emanuel isn’t just speaking to Democratic audiences but traveling to red states including Mississippi and Louisiana. “I think he’s casting a wide canvas on where he sees the party going.”

The early campaigning could also provide Emanuel with an organizational advantage while other possible contenders remain occupied with their current responsibilities or concentrate on the approaching congressional elections.

By entering the political conversation before the field begins to take shape, Scully said, “it gives Rahm a clear path right now.”

Emanuel has also sought to connect the party’s emphasis on affordability with concerns about government ethics and alleged corruption, arguing that Democrats should present those issues as closely related rather than competing priorities.

He has described economic hardship and political misconduct as “heads and tails of the same coin,” suggesting that Democrats should frame their criticism of the administration around the contrast between the financial struggles of ordinary Americans and the benefits he alleges accrue to powerful political figures.

“The president of the United States gets a $450 million gift from Qatar — Air Force One — and you’re getting $4.50 a gallon of gas,” he added.

Emanuel’s direct manner has earned him supporters among some Democratic donors who believe the party needs a forceful and experienced communicator.

John Morgan, a prominent personal injury attorney and major Democratic donor, said Emanuel’s willingness to speak plainly distinguishes him from other political figures.

Morgan said Emanuel attracts attention because “he tells it like it is.”

“I love everything about him,” Morgan added. “His positions are very well thought out and he articulates them succinctly and effectively.

“He’s very brash and direct. The question is will that sell?”

Other Democrats are considerably less enthusiastic about the possibility of Emanuel becoming a leading presidential contender.

Some party strategists believe his long career in Washington and Chicago could be a serious liability at a time when many Democratic voters are looking for a departure from the party’s established leadership.

“He is seen as part of the establishment,” one Democratic strategist said. “And that’s going to be his biggest obstacle: How does he bring people along when they largely want to move away from the past?”

Emanuel’s reputation for aggressive political tactics and confrontational leadership has also raised questions about whether he could unite the party’s different factions.

One Democratic donor, speaking anonymously to offer a candid assessment, described Emanuel as “really smart, really experienced, but abrasive [and] incredibly disliked.”

Nevertheless, the same donor acknowledged that Emanuel appears to be making an effort to change his public image, adopting a less combative style than the one that characterized much of his career in Congress and the White House.

“A lot of people are liking what they hear because he’s taking a [more] pragmatic approach than ever before,” the donor said. “He’s a sharp-elbowed, pit-bull kind of guy, but lately he’s acting in a much softer way.”

Emanuel has also attracted praise from some Republicans who oppose Trump and believe Democrats need to move toward the political center.

Veteran Republican strategist Susan Del Percio, a prominent Trump critic, said Emanuel “right now is the only Democrat I could support.”

Del Percio argued that Emanuel is providing a valuable service to Democrats by challenging the growing influence of the Democratic Socialists of America and encouraging the party to develop a message capable of appealing to voters beyond its progressive base.

“What he’s doing is doing a great service for the Democratic Party,” Del Percio said. “He’s trying to take away some of the stigmas from the DSA [Democratic Socialists of America] that keeps the party’s approval rating so low. He’s trying to start a primary in such a way that can be appealing to voters.

“When you look at his tour, if you will, it’s all about setting up an agenda of what Dems are for, and also how they can appeal to the swing states that it will take to win a general election in 2028,” she said.

Del Percio pointed specifically to Emanuel’s criticism of the Democratic Socialists of America, whose political priorities and organizational identity have become a source of tension within the broader Democratic coalition.

She said Emanuel has been drawing attention to the contradiction between Democrats’ traditional emphasis on maintaining a broad ideological coalition and the desire among some democratic socialists to pursue a more narrowly defined political movement.

“The Dems are all talking about having this big tent,” she said. “But the DSA doesn’t want the rest of the party in their tent. They want their own tent.

“He’s waving this big neon sign saying pay attention to this,” Del Percio added.

Emanuel’s national campaign-style activities began well before his latest appearances in South Carolina. In January, during a visit to Mississippi, he publicly described the ideological contest he believed was developing within the Democratic Party, distinguishing between those primarily focused on opposing Trump and those seeking to rebuild the party around a new domestic agenda.

He has since advanced proposals addressing education, tax policy, children’s access to social media and the age of elected officials. Among his ideas is a mandatory retirement age of 75 for public officeholders, a restriction that would also affect his own ability to seek a second presidential term if elected.

In June, Emanuel spent three days bicycling more than 117 miles across New Hampshire on a trip he called the “Spin-Free Tour.” The visit included meetings with union members, small gatherings with voters and discussions about economic pressures facing middle-class families.

His efforts have not yet translated into substantial support in early presidential polling. Surveys conducted earlier this year placed him well behind several better-known prospective Democratic candidates, illustrating the difficulty he faces in turning extensive political experience and media exposure into a national constituency.

Emanuel has nevertheless continued to emphasize his experience in government, arguing that his years in Congress, the Obama administration, Chicago City Hall and the diplomatic service would allow him to assume presidential responsibilities without a lengthy adjustment period.

During a September appearance at the Texas Tribune Festival, he pointed to his record and governing experience while discussing what he believes distinguishes him from other Democrats considering the 2028 race.

Despite the increasingly visible preparations, Emanuel has stopped short of formally declaring his candidacy. During an October 8 appearance in Chicago, he said he would not decide whether to enter the presidential race until after the November midterm elections.

That timetable allows him to continue campaigning for Democratic candidates and participating in the party’s internal debates without immediately becoming an announced presidential contender.

{Matzav.com}

A shul in Paris was broken into and ransacked overnight, with Sifrei Torah, seforim, tefillin and other religious articles found scattered across the floor, leaving members of the local Jewish community shaken as France struggles with widespread rioting and violent demonstrations.

The attack took place at a temporary beis medrash used by the Ohalei Yaakov congregation in Paris’s 19th arrondissement. Members arriving Sunday morning discovered overturned furniture, emptied cabinets, religious books strewn across the premises and extensive damage to the room and its contents.

Video footage circulated on social media showed the disturbing aftermath, including an opened aron kodesh, displaced Sifrei Torah, scattered talleisim and tefillin, and shelves and other furnishings overturned.

The congregation has been using the temporary location while its regular shul on Rue Henri Murger undergoes construction work. The incident occurred at its temporary premises on Rue Burnouf.

Members of the congregation contacted police after discovering the destruction and avoided disturbing the scene so investigators could examine the premises and collect evidence.

No injuries were reported, and authorities had not announced any arrests in connection with the break-in.

The incident occurred during a weekend of extraordinary unrest across France, where demonstrations over rising living costs, deteriorating public services and education-related grievances deteriorated into violent clashes, looting and arson.

Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators participated in protests across the country on Shabbos, with French authorities estimating attendance at approximately 550,000. Organizers placed the figure substantially higher.

The demonstrations turned violent in several major cities, including Paris, Marseille, Lyon, Bordeaux and Strasbourg, where masked rioters attacked police, vandalized public buildings and looted businesses.

French authorities reported approximately 1,800 arrests nationwide, including 855 in the Paris region. More than 500 police officers and emergency personnel were injured, while one demonstrator died after suffering cardiac arrest during the unrest.

In Limoges, rioters set fire to the historic 19th-century city hall, causing extensive damage and the collapse of its roof.

The destruction prompted French President Emmanuel Macron to schedule an emergency meeting with senior government officials Sunday, followed by a nationally televised address.

French Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu condemned the violence and pledged government assistance to businesses and residents whose property had been destroyed.

The attack on the Paris shul has generated particular alarm among Jewish residents, who have already been grappling with heightened concerns about antisemitism and the security of Jewish institutions.

Sacha Roytman, chief executive of the Combat Antisemitism Movement, warned that the incident illustrated the dangers facing Jewish communities when public disorder escalates.

“When chaos and violence take over the streets, synagogues are the first to be targeted,” Roytman said in remarks translated from Hebrew. “The desecration of the synagogue in Paris is a clear warning sign. What begins against Jews never stops there.”

The incident has renewed concerns about the vulnerability of shuls and other Jewish institutions during periods of civil unrest, particularly in neighborhoods with substantial Jewish populations.

However, a more detailed account from the congregation itself has raised questions about the initial reports describing the incident as a deliberate antisemitic attack connected to the riots.

Raphaël, a member of the Ohalei Yaakov synagogue committee, told the French Jewish publication IsraJ that the scene appeared consistent with an attempted theft rather than an ideologically motivated assault. He said the Sifrei Torah had not been touched and that the objects found on the floor had been removed from cabinets and storage compartments.

He also reported that there had been no rioting near the shul over Shabbos.

In a message to congregants, the shul committee said that nothing had been stolen or deliberately vandalized and that investigators had found no signs of forced entry.

The committee nevertheless acknowledged concerns about why the location had been targeted, particularly because the temporary shul has no exterior signage identifying it as a Jewish place of worship.

{Matzav.com}

Sports commentator Stephen A. Smith said he was astonished by the amount of time President Donald Trump spent entertaining him, comedian Bill Maher and musician Kid Rock at the White House on Thursday evening, revealing that the unusual gathering lasted more than four hours and included candid exchanges about the economy, the upcoming midterm elections and several contentious political issues.

Smith, an ESPN personality who has increasingly weighed in on national politics, described the dinner as an unexpectedly lengthy and open conversation with a president who was willing to engage with guests holding sharply different political views.

During an appearance Friday evening on CNN with Laura Coates, Smith said Trump made no effort to avoid difficult questions, even when the discussion turned to subjects on which his guests disagreed with him.

“It was shocking. I certainly didn’t expect that amount of time,” Smith told CNN’s Laura Coates Friday night. “I give him all the credit in the world because he didn’t run from any questions. Anything we asked him, he kept coming back at us with the things that he had to say.”

The gathering brought together an unusual combination of public figures. Smith has described himself as politically independent, Maher is known for his criticism of both political parties and particularly his opposition to Trump on numerous issues, and Kid Rock has been one of the president’s most outspoken celebrity supporters.

Kid Rock, whose legal name is Robert Ritchie, discussed the dinner during an appearance Friday on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends.” He said he had previously shared a meal with Trump and Maher, although he did not explain how the latest gathering of guests with such different political outlooks had been arranged.

Smith said his primary motivation for accepting the White House invitation was to raise concerns about federal financial support for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, commonly known as HBCUs.

The conversation, however, extended well beyond education funding. According to Smith, the guests discussed the political environment heading into November’s congressional elections, the condition of the American economy and individual candidates facing competitive races.

Kid Rock offered a similar account of the evening, acknowledging that the participants did not agree on everything but saying they found common ground on certain political and economic principles.

According to the musician, those at the table agreed that “socialism and communism have no place to have a foothold in our government.”

The dinner took place at a politically sensitive moment for Trump and congressional Republicans, who are preparing for the midterm elections amid voter dissatisfaction over several major issues, particularly economic conditions and the cost of living.

Recent polling has reflected challenges for the administration, including concerns among voters about whether Trump has delivered the economic improvements he promised during his 2024 presidential campaign.

Smith said he confronted the president about those concerns and pressed him on the Republican Party’s political difficulties. Trump, he recalled, remained confident that the economic situation would improve and that his administration’s policies would ultimately produce favorable results.

“As it pertains to the economy, no, he says what he always says, and he firmly believes in himself,” Smith said. “Obviously everything gets better. That’s his mentality.”

Smith also told Trump that public opinion surveys showed his popularity had declined. The president, according to Smith, responded by emphasizing that he continued to enjoy strong support among Republican voters.

The discussion also turned to the closely watched U.S. Senate race in Texas, where Republican nominee and state Attorney General Ken Paxton is facing Democrat James Talarico.

Trump supported Paxton during the Republican primary, but the attorney general has encountered difficulties in the general election campaign, with several surveys showing a close contest and Talarico holding a narrow advantage in some polls.

Smith said he directly criticized Paxton’s unwillingness to participate in a debate with his Democratic opponent, arguing that a candidate seeking a seat in the United States Senate should be prepared to defend his positions publicly.

“I said to him, the real problem is Ken Paxton. It’s a damn shame that [Paxton] … is sitting around scared to debate,” Smith said. “That is a disgrace to me. He should be unqualified for the job.”

Paxton has declined invitations from Talarico to participate in a debate, despite calls from some fellow Republicans for him to agree to a public confrontation with his opponent.

Among those urging Paxton to debate has been Republican Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas, who has argued that voters deserve an opportunity to hear directly from both candidates.

According to Smith, Trump appeared receptive to his criticism of Paxton’s refusal to debate, telling him he had “a good point.”

Smith said the evening was particularly meaningful because it marked his first face-to-face encounter with Trump in more than 15 years, despite their longstanding acquaintance.

He explained that although the two men had known each other for many years, they had communicated only sparingly since Trump first entered the White House. Smith viewed the dinner as an opportunity to present his concerns directly rather than simply discuss them through television appearances.

“This is the first time I’ve seen him face to face in over a decade and a half, and I saw it as an opportunity to make my case,” Smith said. “Obviously we’ve known each other for many, many years, even though we’ve never spoken outside of one interview since he became president of the United States.”

Trump also addressed the gathering when speaking with reporters outside the White House on Friday, describing the evening as “great” and saying that “they had a good time.”

The president praised the guests and spoke warmly about Maher, whose political commentary has frequently included sharp criticism of Trump.

“It was a very informative dinner,” the president added. “Smart people. Stephen A. is great. Bill Maher — I will tell you what. He likes me a lot more than people understand, and I actually like him. It was a good dinner.”

Additional accounts of the dinner revealed that the four men discussed an even wider range of subjects than Smith initially described, including the war in Iran, the treatment of Afghans who assisted American forces and the impact of the administration’s diversity policies on financial support for historically Black colleges.

Kid Rock said Smith was particularly concerned that the administration’s opposition to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives could discourage corporations from contributing to HBCUs, even if the federal government continued supporting those institutions.

The musician said he believed the administration wanted private companies to continue providing financial assistance to historically Black colleges and universities, despite its broader opposition to DEI programs.

Kid Rock also said Maher raised the situation of Afghan interpreters and other individuals who assisted American forces during the war in Afghanistan, bringing another foreign policy issue into the discussion.

According to Smith’s more detailed account on CNN, the evening included a tour of several areas of the White House, including the West Wing, the Rose Garden and the presidential portrait display.

Smith said he noticed that the display featured an image of an autopen in place of a conventional portrait of Joe Biden. When Smith objected to the joke at Biden’s expense, Trump defended it and laughed, according to the commentator.

The gathering also included a visit to the White House ballroom construction project, where Trump showed his guests the ongoing work.

The meeting marked another chapter in the unusual relationship between Trump and Maher, who previously attended a White House dinner with the president and Kid Rock in 2025. Despite their longstanding political disagreements, Maher has defended his willingness to speak directly with Trump rather than avoid contact because of their differences.

Maher had publicly disclosed plans for another White House dinner earlier in the week, explaining that Trump had unexpectedly invited him back after their previous meeting.

Kid Rock described Thursday’s gathering as “epic,” saying the participants were able to share a meal, laugh together and debate difficult political questions despite their differing views.

For Smith, the most surprising aspect remained the president’s willingness to devote more than four hours to the gathering and personally engage with the concerns raised by his guests.

{Matzav.com}

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky warned Saturday that President Donald Trump’s decision to suspend major sanctions against Russia could embolden Vladimir Putin and lead to further concessions to Moscow, even as Russian forces intensify attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure ahead of winter.

Zelensky expressed concern that the administration’s decision to relax restrictions targeting Russian energy revenues represents the beginning of a broader rollback of American economic pressure on the Kremlin. He argued that easing sanctions while Russian attacks continue would weaken efforts to bring the war to an end.

The dispute escalated Friday when Trump signed an executive order temporarily waiving extensive American sanctions affecting Russia’s energy industry. The move followed an agreement between Washington and Moscow allowing Russian diesel exports in exchange for sanctions relief.

The decision comes during the fifth year of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a conflict that has left hundreds of thousands dead and forced millions of people from their homes. Russian forces have continued launching strikes across Ukraine despite diplomatic efforts to negotiate an end to the fighting.

Zelensky said he feared the diesel arrangement would be followed by additional American concessions to Russia.

“Unfortunately, the lifting of sanctions will continue. I believe the ‘diesel deal’ is just the first step,” Zelensky told reporters.

The Ukrainian president emphasized that he still hoped Trump would use American influence to compel Putin to end the war. However, he insisted that reducing economic pressure on Russia while limiting Ukraine’s ability to retaliate would make a negotiated settlement more difficult.

Zelensky said he still “personally” hoped that Trump will do “everything in his power” to make Putin end the war but added: “You cannot achieve this by limiting Ukraine’s responses to Russia for killing our people. And certainly not by lifting sanctions.”

His remarks followed another wave of Russian airstrikes that Ukrainian officials said killed at least two people Saturday and injured numerous others.

Authorities in the southern city of Kherson reported that one person was killed and 22 others wounded, including two children, in a Russian attack. A separate strike in the northeastern city of Sumy killed another person, according to local officials.

Zelensky said the timing of Washington’s sanctions decision was especially troubling because it coincided with a major Russian assault on Ukraine’s electricity infrastructure.

According to the Ukrainian president, Russian forces targeted 15 critical power-generation facilities Friday in what he described as “one of the largest” attacks on the country’s energy network.

The strikes heightened concerns about Ukraine’s ability to maintain electricity and heating supplies as colder weather approaches, particularly after repeated Russian attacks on power stations and other essential infrastructure during previous winters.

Zelensky argued that the United States should be increasing economic pressure on Moscow rather than offering relief while Russia continues attacking Ukrainian cities and civilian infrastructure.

The suspended sanctions were imposed under the Lindsey Graham Act, legislation named for the late American senator who sponsored the measure. The law targeted important sectors of the Russian economy, including energy and defense, as well as Putin personally and the network of vessels used to transport Russian oil and other products despite Western restrictions.

That network, commonly known as Russia’s “shadow fleet,” has played a significant role in Moscow’s efforts to maintain energy exports and generate revenue despite international sanctions.

Zelensky maintained that the legislation had the potential to significantly weaken Russia’s ability to finance its military campaign and pressure Putin into meaningful negotiations.

“It is important that everyone in America also sees what is really happening,” Zelensky wrote on social media.

Referring to the sanctions legislation, he said it was “supposed to impose truly effective pressure on Russia to bring this war to an end” and argued that the measure “could have helped enormously — and still can!”.

The Ukrainian leader warned that relaxing sanctions would send the wrong message to Moscow by reducing the economic consequences of continuing the war.

“A U.S. sanctions blackout, easing pressure on the aggressor, financial rewards for Putin — all of this only encourages him to keep attacking,” he warned.

Zelensky also accused Russia of deliberately attempting to cripple Ukraine’s electricity supply before winter, warning that continued attacks could leave large numbers of civilians without basic utilities.

He said Moscow was seeking to produce a nationwide “blackout” by systematically striking the infrastructure needed to generate and distribute electricity.

“Russia is trying to leave millions of our people without electricity and heating,” Zelensky said.

He urged Ukraine’s international partners to intensify pressure on Russia to halt its attacks, particularly those targeting facilities essential to civilian life.

Ukraine has already experienced severe energy shortages during previous winters, when Russian bombardments damaged power plants and transmission systems, leaving hundreds of thousands of residents without reliable heating or electricity during periods of freezing weather.

The latest strikes have renewed fears that Moscow intends to repeat that strategy as temperatures fall, increasing the humanitarian pressure on Ukraine while the war continues.

Russian officials, meanwhile, welcomed the Trump administration’s decision as a significant diplomatic and economic development.

Although neither Putin nor the Kremlin had issued an official response to the sanctions suspension, several prominent Russian figures publicly celebrated the announcement.

Kirill Dmitriev, a Russian presidential envoy who has been involved in diplomatic contacts with Washington, described the move as a major achievement.

“The Trump administration’s suspension of the Graham Act is an important and truly historic moment,” Dmitriev wrote on social media.

The sanctions package had been signed into law by Trump on September 18 and was scheduled to take effect Sunday, October 18. His executive order suspending the measures came just two days before their implementation deadline, with the president informing Congress that the waiver was justified by American national interests.

The legislation authorized penalties against Russian government officials, financial institutions and energy companies, along with tariffs of up to 100 percent on major purchasers of Russian oil and natural gas. The restrictions were designed to reduce the revenues available to Moscow for financing its military operations in Ukraine.

Trump’s decision followed mounting concerns about rising fuel prices in the United States, particularly diesel costs, which have become a major economic issue ahead of the November midterm elections.

Earlier this month, Trump announced that he had reached an arrangement with Putin under which Russia would release substantial additional quantities of diesel onto international markets. The administration has presented the agreement as a means of increasing fuel supplies and easing pressure on American consumers and businesses.

Under the arrangement described by Trump, Russia would initially supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel, followed by another 500,000 tons in November and an additional 1 million tons shortly afterward. The president also indicated that Russia could provide another 3 million tons once refinery conditions permitted.

The agreement has drawn criticism from American lawmakers who argue that purchasing Russian fuel or relaxing sanctions could provide Moscow with additional financial resources while its military campaign against Ukraine continues.

The sanctions suspension has generated objections from members of both parties in Congress, including lawmakers who supported the original legislation.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, who worked with the late Sen. Lindsey Graham on the sanctions measure, criticized the administration’s decision, arguing that it undermined the legislation’s central purpose of increasing economic pressure on Russia.

Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia also condemned the waiver, contending that it weakened Washington’s position toward Moscow at a time when Russian forces were continuing their attacks.

Other lawmakers have questioned whether the administration should suspend sanctions approved by Congress without first demonstrating that Russia has taken meaningful steps toward ending the war.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has indicated that the administration will review the broader economic implications of the sanctions over a 60-day period before determining whether additional measures should be implemented.

The decision has also complicated Washington’s relationship with Kyiv. Zelensky has been meeting with European leaders in Brussels to seek additional financial and military assistance as Ukraine faces continued Russian bombardment and uncertainty about future American support.

European governments have been discussing how to sustain Ukraine’s military and civilian needs during the coming year, including the substantial costs of defending the country and repairing infrastructure repeatedly damaged by Russian attacks.

For Ukraine, the immediate concern remains the destruction of its energy facilities. Russian strikes have repeatedly damaged power stations, substations and transmission equipment, forcing emergency repairs and electricity restrictions in affected areas.

Zelensky has warned that Ukraine’s air defenses are under increasing strain because of the frequency and scale of Russian drone and missile attacks. He has urged allied governments to provide additional defensive systems and ammunition to protect civilian infrastructure.

Meanwhile, Dmitriev argued that suspending the American sanctions would help avert serious economic consequences for both the United States and international markets. The Russian envoy has portrayed the administration’s decision as an opportunity to move toward improved economic relations between Washington and Moscow.

Trump has maintained that his approach is intended to advance American economic interests while seeking an end to the war, but negotiations between Russia and Ukraine have yet to produce a lasting agreement.

{Matzav.com}

Four yeshiva bochurim have been taken into military custody in separate incidents in Israel, with two already sentenced to 20 days in military prison, triggering a major protest Sunday morning that brought traffic on Highway 4 to a standstill and led to confrontations between demonstrators, motorists and police.

The latest arrests took place over the weekend near Eilat, where two bochurim were stopped by civilian police on suspicion of traffic violations. According to sources, the officers initially detained the pair over allegations of speeding, running a red light and driving without a license. However, a subsequent examination of their records revealed that they were classified by the military as draft evaders, prompting police to transfer them to military authorities.

The incident followed the arrests of two other bochurim, Yedidya Mizrachi and Yonatan Mostakis, students at Yeshivas Ohr Hachaim, headed by Rav Reuven Elbaz. The two were detained Thursday at a beach in Rishon Letzion and subsequently handed over to military police.

According to reports in the Israeli chareidi media, the bochurim had been in an area where several youths were burning a small fire. Police officers who arrived at the location requested identification from those present. Upon discovering the bochurim’s military status, officers transferred them to military custody.

Both were subsequently sentenced to 20 days in military prison for failing to report for military service.

Their imprisonment sparked outrage among activists opposed to the drafting of yeshiva students, particularly followers of Rav Tzvi Friedman, a faction associated with the Peleg Yerushalmi movement.

On Sunday morning, dozens of protesters unexpectedly converged on Highway 4 near the Yavne interchange, blocking traffic in both directions during the busy morning commute.

The demonstration had initially been planned for the Bnei Brak area, but organizers reportedly changed the location at the last moment in an effort to prevent police from preparing for the blockade.

The protest quickly caused extensive traffic disruptions, with motorists finding themselves trapped as demonstrators occupied the roadway. Confrontations erupted between some drivers and protesters, with footage from the scene showing physical altercations as motorists attempted to clear a path for their vehicles.

Police dispatched substantial forces to the area, including a water-cannon vehicle, and used stun grenades and other crowd-control measures to disperse the demonstrators.

According to reports from the scene, some motorists became involved in efforts to remove protesters from the road, resulting in additional confrontations. Chareidi media reports accused police of failing to intervene adequately when demonstrators were attacked by members of the public.

Police Commissioner Danny Levy instructed officers to take firm action against road blockades and disturbances that interfere with public safety and daily life.

“Anyone who chooses to disrupt public order and block roads will face a firm response and zero tolerance from the Israel Police,” Levy declared.

In a statement issued during the demonstration, police confirmed that Highway 4 had been closed in both directions near the Yavne interchange and urged motorists to avoid the area, use alternative routes and follow officers’ instructions.

Authorities emphasized that while the right to demonstrate is protected, protesters would not be permitted to obstruct major transportation arteries or endanger the public.

After approximately 90 minutes, police succeeded in dispersing the demonstrators and reopening the highway to traffic.

The arrests and subsequent protest come amid growing tensions surrounding the Israeli government’s enforcement of military enlistment requirements against chareidi yeshiva students.

Although military police have reportedly conducted relatively few proactive arrests of chareidi draft evaders in recent weeks, bochurim whose military status is flagged during routine police encounters continue to face the possibility of being transferred into military custody.

The latest incidents illustrate how even an ordinary encounter with civilian police can lead to imprisonment for a yeshiva student whose military status remains unresolved.

The confrontation also comes against the backdrop of reports that the IDF had planned a broader operation to arrest chareidi draft evaders, only for the initiative to be postponed following disagreements with civilian police over the manpower and security arrangements necessary to carry it out.

Sunday’s demonstration drew criticism from opposition politicians, including Yair Lapid and Gadi Eisenkot, who used the highway blockade to attack the chareidi community and the government’s handling of the draft controversy.

Lapid accused the demonstrators of refusing to serve while disrupting the lives of working Israelis and criticized Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his coalition partners for what he characterized as their failure to confront the protesters.

Eisenkot similarly condemned the blockade and accused the government of enabling the ongoing confrontation over military service.

{Matzav.com}

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence could soon make it virtually impossible to determine whether photographs and videos are genuine or computer-generated, representatives of OpenAI and Meta warned federal judges Thursday, raising serious questions about the future reliability of visual evidence in American courtrooms.

The warnings were delivered during a meeting in Boston of the U.S. Judicial Conference’s Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, which is examining whether existing courtroom procedures are sufficient to address increasingly sophisticated AI-generated fabrications, commonly known as deepfakes.

The committee has been studying the issue since 2023, amid growing concern that artificial intelligence could allow litigants, witnesses or other individuals to introduce fabricated photographs, recordings and videos that appear authentic. The technology is advancing so quickly that even experts may struggle to distinguish genuine material from convincing digital imitations.

Shira Anderson, policy counsel for OpenAI, told the judges that advances in image-generation technology could eventually eliminate the possibility of reliably identifying AI-created content through scientific analysis alone.

“AI images are only getting better, and I do not think that there will be a scientific way going forward to detect them,” Anderson said.

Meta offered a similarly troubling assessment, warning that the newest artificial intelligence systems can already produce visual material that ordinary viewers cannot distinguish from authentic photographs or recordings.

Devin Norder, Meta’s director of product management, said the sophistication of the technology has reached a point where human observation can no longer be counted on to establish whether a piece of media is genuine.

“Media generated from frontier models, at least in the last few generations, are indistinguishable by humans from authentic or AI-generated media,” Norder said.

The ease with which such material can now be manufactured makes the problem even more significant. Creating realistic fake images and videos once required specialized technical expertise and substantial resources, but modern AI systems have dramatically reduced those barriers.

“And the cost and the time it takes to create this media really are quite trivial at this point,” Norder added.

Both OpenAI and Meta have developed technologies intended to help identify or authenticate digital material. Such systems can include embedded information indicating how an image was produced, where it originated or whether artificial intelligence was involved in its creation.

Governments have also begun responding to the problem. California and the European Union have adopted requirements involving the labeling or watermarking of certain AI-generated content, reflecting growing concern that fabricated digital media could be used to mislead the public or interfere with legal proceedings.

However, Anderson cautioned that authentication systems have significant limitations, particularly because different technology companies use different methods that may not be compatible with one another.

Even as detection and verification tools improve, she suggested, no available approach is likely to provide an absolute guarantee that fabricated content will always be identified.

“My guess is that this absolutely will continue to get better. I do not think it’ll ever be bulletproof,” Anderson said.

The warnings have created a difficult question for federal judges: Should the courts establish special evidentiary rules for artificial intelligence before deepfakes become a widespread problem, or should they continue relying on existing procedures for challenging questionable evidence?

Despite the alarming predictions from technology companies, the committee has found relatively few documented instances in which deepfake allegations have become an issue in federal court proceedings.

A survey released in March by the Federal Judicial Center, the research and education arm of the federal judiciary, questioned 931 judges about their experiences with potentially fabricated AI evidence.

Only 15 respondents reported having presided over a case in which a party challenged evidence on the grounds that it was a deepfake.

U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman of Manhattan, who chairs the advisory committee, pointed to the difference between the widespread concern surrounding the technology and the limited number of cases in which the issue has actually arisen.

“There’s a lot of academic commentary and other commentary predicting that courts will be dealing with deepfakes, but we haven’t actually seen a whole lot of that yet,” Furman said.

The relatively small number of reported cases has contributed to disagreement among committee members about whether a new rule specifically addressing AI-generated evidence is necessary.

Some participants believe the technology presents sufficiently unusual challenges to justify additional protections, particularly because highly realistic fabrications could be difficult for judges, jurors and attorneys to recognize.

Others maintain that courts already possess procedures for evaluating authenticity, examining witnesses, challenging unreliable evidence and imposing penalties when parties attempt to deceive the judicial system.

U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni of Manhattan argued that the fundamental problem of fabricated evidence is hardly new and that existing legal safeguards may be capable of addressing AI-generated material without creating an entirely separate set of rules.

“We’ve dealt with bad actors presenting fake evidence since Cain and Abel. That’s a longstanding problem,” Caproni said.

The issue extends far beyond courtrooms. Artificial intelligence is also providing criminals with increasingly powerful tools for impersonation, deception and financial fraud, allowing scammers to create convincing simulations of real people using photographs, videos and recordings obtained online.

Wynton Hall, author of the book Code Red: The Left, the Right, China, and the Race to Control AI, has warned that fraudsters can exploit information available on social media to build detailed profiles of potential victims before using AI to impersonate people they know and trust.

During an appearance on Newsmax, Hall described how criminals can combine personal information with sophisticated voice and image-generation technology to create highly persuasive scams.

“They can now mine your social media and then they build a detailed dossier on your life, and then they use the AI to mimic a loved one so convincingly that your instincts will tell you that it’s real,” the author said.

The growing availability of these capabilities means that criminals no longer need substantial financial resources or advanced programming skills to deploy them.

“These tools are now becoming democratized so that they’re cheap, they’re easy to use, and that means they’re accessible at a mass scale,” Hall added.

Federal law enforcement statistics illustrate the financial consequences of AI-assisted fraud. According to the FBI, scams involving artificial intelligence generated more than 22,000 complaints during 2025, with reported losses approaching $893 million.

The committee has also considered a possible amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence 901, which governs how parties establish that evidence is authentic before it can be admitted in court.

Under a proposal discussed by the judiciary, a party challenging a photograph, video or recording as an AI-generated fabrication would first need to present a credible basis for suspecting that the material was falsified. If that threshold were met, the party seeking to introduce the evidence could face a greater burden of demonstrating its authenticity.

The proposal remains under consideration, and the committee has not reached a final decision on whether an AI-specific rule should be adopted.

The Federal Judicial Center’s research also illustrates the difficulty facing judges. Although only 15 of the 931 surveyed judges reported encountering challenges involving alleged deepfakes, the survey was designed to assess both their experiences and their views on whether existing evidentiary standards are adequate.

The judiciary has acknowledged that the speed of AI development creates an additional complication: A rule designed to address the technology as it exists today could become outdated before the lengthy federal rulemaking process is completed.

For now, federal courts continue to rely on existing authentication requirements while the advisory committee examines whether additional protections are necessary. The committee has assigned further study of the issue as judges weigh the risk of increasingly convincing fabricated evidence against the limited number of documented courtroom incidents.

The White House has formally launched a 120-day review of advanced artificial intelligence, establishing a timetable for recommendations on federal oversight of increasingly powerful AI systems as President Donald Trump’s administration seeks to preserve America’s technological advantage over China while addressing emerging national security and public safety concerns.

The administration’s artificial intelligence task force approved its governing charter Thursday following its inaugural official meeting, setting in motion a broad examination of how Washington should regulate, monitor and coordinate with companies developing the most sophisticated AI technology.

Among its first decisions, the panel authorized the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology to prepare an assessment of the potential dangers associated with advanced AI. The report will examine cybersecurity vulnerabilities, threats to essential infrastructure, biological security risks, technologies with both civilian and military applications, and questions surrounding the ability to control and hold AI systems accountable.

The task force is expected to consult extensively with technology companies, government agencies and outside organizations before developing its recommendations. A White House official said the process would incorporate perspectives from developers of cutting-edge AI models, consumer advocates, civil liberties organizations, industry representatives and law enforcement authorities at both the state and federal levels.

The panel also established a separate working group responsible for carrying out the White House Accord on Super Intelligence, a voluntary agreement signed earlier this month by executives from several leading AI companies.

That effort will be directed by Director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton, who chairs the task force, together with National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross. Their responsibilities include coordinating the administration’s approach to implementing commitments made under the agreement.

Clayton, who previously served as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, was appointed to lead the initiative as the administration increased its focus on the national security implications of advanced AI development.

Defense Undersecretary Emil Michael, one of the task force’s vice chairs, has been assigned responsibility for establishing procedures through which AI laboratories would report security breaches, hacking incidents and other cybersecurity threats to federal authorities.

Michael will also serve as a principal liaison between the Pentagon and companies developing frontier AI models, with an emphasis on building longer-term cooperation across federal agencies.

Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson will oversee a committee focused on law enforcement and consumer protection. The Justice Department will participate in that group, which is expected to examine legal and regulatory concerns arising from the deployment of increasingly capable AI systems.

Office of Personnel Management Director Scott Kupor will lead efforts involving critical infrastructure and the potential consequences of artificial intelligence for American workers. His work will include coordination with the Labor Department to assess how the technology could affect employment and the broader workforce.

The task force includes several of the administration’s most senior officials, reflecting the importance the White House has attached to the initiative.

Vice President JD Vance, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Director Michael Kratsios are among its members. White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and Deputy Chief of Staff Richard Walters are also participating.

The administration is considering a range of possible tools for addressing AI-related concerns, including restrictions on the export of advanced technology.

A White House official identified export controls as one potential mechanism available to the government, pointing to temporary restrictions imposed by the Commerce Department on AI developer Anthropic after the company declined to provide federal authorities with unrestricted access to its models.

The episode illustrates the potential tensions between the administration’s national security objectives and technology companies seeking to retain control over access to their proprietary systems.

The new task force follows a September 29 executive order in which Trump directed federal agencies to adopt the term “super intelligence” in place of “artificial intelligence,” reflecting the administration’s emphasis on the rapidly advancing capabilities of the technology.

That same day, approximately two dozen technology executives attended a White House luncheon, while six companies developing advanced AI models signed the voluntary White House Accord on Super Intelligence.

Trump described the agreement as “morally binding,” underscoring the administration’s expectation that participating companies would adhere to its commitments even though the accord was not presented as a conventional federal regulation.

The initiative comes as American technology companies compete to develop increasingly sophisticated AI systems capable of performing complex tasks, conducting research and assisting with work that previously required substantial human expertise.

For the administration, that technological race carries significant economic and national security implications, particularly as China invests heavily in its own artificial intelligence capabilities.

Clayton, who was confirmed to his intelligence position during the summer, has identified maintaining American leadership over China as a central objective of the White House effort.

“The risk of not being first is high,” Clayton told the Wall Street Journal.

The White House initiative is also drawing attention from lawmakers and researchers who want stronger safeguards for advanced AI systems. Ahead of the task force’s first meeting, Senators Mike Rounds of South Dakota and Maria Cantwell of Washington urged the administration to strengthen federal AI testing capabilities, including work conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Energy Department’s national laboratories.

Americans for Responsible Innovation, an organization advocating greater AI safety oversight, has likewise pressed the panel to consider recommending enforceable federal safety standards and greater public transparency. The group argues that voluntary commitments from technology companies may be insufficient to address the risks posed by increasingly capable systems.

The White House Accord signed September 29 outlines several responsibilities for participating companies, including internal monitoring of AI models for cybersecurity, biological and chemical risks, as well as independent evaluations and procedures for identifying and addressing dangerous capabilities. Those commitments will now form part of the task force’s implementation work.

The administration’s September executive order also requires the White House science and technology adviser to submit proposed legislative language within 60 days establishing a federal definition of “Super Intelligence.” The proposal is supposed to examine whether existing legal references to artificial intelligence should be updated and whether additional presidential action is necessary.

The task force’s work is taking place amid growing public concern over the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence. A recent Reuters/Ipsos survey found substantial concern among American voters about whether the federal government is doing enough to address the technology’s risks, with many respondents favoring additional regulatory safeguards.

For now, the task force has established its initial assignments and review process, but the precise enforcement mechanisms it may ultimately recommend remain undecided. Its findings, expected within 120 days of the charter’s adoption, will help determine how the Trump administration intends to balance technological innovation, national security, consumer protection and federal oversight.

President Donald Trump has warned California election officials that they could face lengthy prison sentences if they knowingly count ballots cast by noncitizens in the upcoming midterm elections, escalating a confrontation between his administration and Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom over voter eligibility and election integrity.

The warning followed a Justice Department demand that California authorities examine federal data identifying thousands of registered voters as potential noncitizens and prevent ballots from ineligible individuals from being included in the November election results. California officials have challenged the administration’s actions, accusing the federal government of attempting to interfere with voting just weeks before Election Day.

“They will all go to jail for a long period of time!!!” Trump wrote Friday on Truth Social.

The president accompanied his warning with a Justice Department letter addressed to the Los Angeles County Counsel’s Office. Federal officials cautioned that election administrators could face “significant” consequences if they were found to be “facilitating or ignoring” the “federal crime” of unlawful voting in a federal election.

The dispute intensified Thursday when the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against California after giving state and local election authorities a USB drive containing federal citizenship information. The material reportedly included approximately 20,000 names identified by the Department of Homeland Security as belonging to people who were not United States citizens.

Federal officials gave California 48 hours to compare those names against its voter registration records. The administration sought to determine whether individuals identified in the federal data remained registered to vote and whether any ballots submitted by those individuals should be withheld pending verification of their eligibility.

Earlier in the week, the Justice Department had separately provided election administrators with a letter containing the password needed to access the information stored on the drive.

The lawsuit described the federal government’s request as a measure intended to prevent potentially unlawful votes from being counted while allowing individuals whose citizenship could be verified to have their ballots included.

“If California was unable to independently confirm the citizenship of people on that list, the Federal Government asked that California set aside ballots received from them until the person’s citizenship was confirmed,” the lawsuit stated.

The Justice Department made its legal filing publicly available, describing the release as a “courtesy to the public.”

Newsom responded angrily to the lawsuit, rejecting the administration’s allegations and portraying the federal action as an effort to intimidate California election officials ahead of the midterms.

In a written statement Thursday, the governor described the lawsuit as a “sad, desperate attempt by Trump to use his politicized Justice Department to try to suppress California voters just three weeks before Election Day.”

Newsom also argued that the federal government was overstepping its authority by attempting to direct how California conducts its elections.

“The courts have made clear that the federal government has no role in how a state carries out its election process, and now, in the middle of Californians voting, they have asked local officials — who do a damn good job defending democracy — to violate federal law,” Newsom also said in the statement.

The administration’s voter registration initiative has already generated separate legal challenges from voting rights organizations questioning both the reliability of the federal citizenship data and the legality of using that information to alter voter rolls so close to an election.

In September, the UCLA Voting Rights Project filed a lawsuit against the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security, challenging the methodology used to identify registered voters as noncitizens. The organization questioned whether the government had adequately established that the individuals flagged in its records were actually ineligible to vote.

Attorneys representing the group subsequently warned that they could seek an emergency court order if the administration continued pursuing criminal enforcement measures against California election officials.

The group has argued that federal election laws prohibit certain systematic efforts to remove voters from registration lists shortly before an election, and that the administration’s proposed procedures could improperly affect eligible voters.

“Your clients’ actions in compiling the list violates established law; your efforts to employ this list to systematically purge voters, less than a month before the election, further violates the National Voter Registration Act, among other laws,” attorneys for the group wrote in its most recent letter to the DOJ.

The confrontation is part of a broader disagreement over the accuracy of state voter registration records and the federal government’s role in ensuring that only eligible citizens participate in national elections.

Earlier this year, Trump alleged that California and three other states had a combined 250,000 noncitizens listed on their voter rolls. His political opponents disputed the figure, questioning the evidence underlying the administration’s claims.

The latest dispute has also produced differing figures in public accounts. The Justice Department’s immediate request reportedly involved approximately 20,000 individuals identified in federal citizenship data, while broader allegations concerning potentially ineligible registrations have referenced much larger numbers. Those figures do not, by themselves, establish that the individuals involved cast ballots illegally.

Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections, but the central disagreement in California concerns how the government determines citizenship status, whether its records are sufficiently accurate to justify withholding ballots, and what authority federal officials have to compel state election administrators to act on that information.

With voting already underway in California and the November midterms approaching, the dispute has placed state election officials between competing legal demands from Washington and Sacramento, raising the prospect of further emergency litigation over which ballots can be counted.

In announcing the lawsuit, Attorney General Todd Blanche accused California of undermining the safeguards intended to protect federal elections and said the Justice Department would continue pursuing suspected violations.

“State-facilitated voter fraud is unacceptable in the United States of America,” Blanche said. “If found responsible in a court of law, the State of California will have seriously undermined confidence in our electoral system and violated laws that protect our nation’s representative system of government. The Department of Justice will continue working to uncover cases of voter fraud, hold fraudsters accountable, and restore trust in American elections.”

First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli, whose office is involved in the litigation, said California had been offered an opportunity to investigate the flagged registrations before the government went to court.

“California election officials were given an opportunity to remove noncitizens from their voter rolls and to sequester ballots returned from suspected ineligible voters. They refused,” Essayli said. “We are taking California to federal court to demand that the votes of American citizens not be diluted by noncitizens.”

According to the Justice Department, investigators from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and Homeland Security Investigations examined voter registration information alongside federal citizenship records. The government maintains that the resulting review identified approximately 20,000 people whose records suggested they were likely noncitizens registered to participate in California’s federal election.

California election officials have challenged the reliability of those findings. They argue that federal databases can contain outdated or incomplete information, potentially causing naturalized American citizens to be incorrectly classified as noncitizens.

The dispute has also raised concerns about the handling of sensitive voter information. Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder Dean Logan objected to the method used to transmit the federal list, including security concerns surrounding the USB drive provided to election administrators.

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber has separately disputed the administration’s allegations, maintaining that the federal government has not produced adequate evidence establishing that the individuals identified are ineligible to vote.

The administration’s legal complaint seeks to require California to separate ballots associated with the disputed registrations and verify the voters’ citizenship before including those ballots in the election totals. It does not establish that all individuals on the federal list are noncitizens or that any particular number of illegal votes has already been cast.

The larger figure referenced in some reports stems from separate allegations about California’s voter rolls. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has suggested that more than 190,000 noncitizens may be registered in the state, but that broader estimate is distinct from the approximately 20,000 registrations at issue in the current lawsuit.

The Justice Department’s action comes as California has already begun distributing mail-in ballots for the November 3 election. Under state law, registered voters automatically receive ballots by mail, making the timing of any court-ordered review especially significant.

The federal lawsuit asks the court to intervene before those ballots are tabulated. California officials and voting rights advocates maintain that the administration has not demonstrated that its citizenship data are sufficiently reliable to justify withholding votes from registered individuals.

The escalating dispute now places the administration’s allegations of widespread voter registration irregularities before a federal judge, with the election approaching and the question of how California must handle the disputed ballots still unresolved.

{Matzav.com}

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has announced that he will leave office in 2030 after 16 years as the country’s leader, declaring that his decision is final and that Egypt’s constitution will not be amended to allow him to remain in power for another term.

The announcement, delivered during a graduation ceremony at the Egyptian Military Academy in Egypt’s New Administrative Capital, comes amid growing speculation about the country’s political future and a campaign by Sisi supporters urging him to extend his presidency beyond the constitutional deadline.

Sisi, 71, sought to put those rumors to rest, insisting that he intends to relinquish the presidency when his current six-year term expires. At the same time, he unveiled an ambitious initiative to prepare a new generation of Egyptian leaders, including potential candidates to succeed him.

“In 2030, my term as president will end. This matter has been decided. We will live and see,” Sisi declared, according to the Hebrew-language account of his remarks.

The Egyptian leader emphasized that he would not support changes to the constitution designed to prolong his presidency, despite calls from political allies for him to remain in office.

His announcement represents a significant development for Egypt, where Sisi has dominated the political landscape since the military removed President Mohamed Morsi from power in July 2013.

Sisi, then Egypt’s defense minister and military chief, emerged as the country’s dominant political figure following Morsi’s removal and formally assumed the presidency in 2014.

He has since consolidated authority over Egypt’s political and security institutions, overseeing a government in which the military plays a major role in economic development, public administration and national security.

If Sisi follows through on his announcement, his departure in 2030 would conclude a 16-year presidency and open the way for Egypt’s first leadership transition in more than a decade and a half.

The president coupled his retirement announcement with a proposal that would give the Egyptian Military Academy a central role in identifying and training future government officials.

Under the initiative, individuals holding doctoral degrees from leading universities in Egypt and abroad would undergo an intensive 30-month training program designed to prepare them for senior positions in government.

Participants would study the structure and operation of the Egyptian state, the management of national resources, the responsibilities of public officials and the challenges involved in governing a country of more than 100 million people.

Sisi said the program would seek to develop individuals capable of assuming some of the country’s most important leadership positions, potentially including the presidency itself.

Other positions identified as possible destinations for graduates include cabinet ministries, provincial governorships, parliament and senior administrative posts throughout the government.

The president proposed establishing a committee to determine admission requirements and develop the legislation necessary to implement the program.

The committee would include the speaker of Egypt’s parliament, government ministers, political figures, academics and other public representatives.

Although Sisi outlined the broad objectives of the initiative, he did not explain precisely how graduates would subsequently be selected for government appointments or placed on the ballot for elected positions.

That uncertainty has raised questions about whether the proposed system would simply provide professional training for future leaders or become an important mechanism through which the Egyptian political establishment influences the selection of the country’s next president.

The announcement also drew attention to Egypt’s existing constitutional framework, which has already been revised during Sisi’s presidency.

In 2019, Egyptian voters approved constitutional amendments extending presidential terms from four years to six and allowing Sisi to seek an additional term.

Those changes enabled him to remain president until 2030, despite earlier constitutional restrictions that would otherwise have limited his time in office.

Sisi secured another six-year term in the December 2023 presidential election, officially winning an overwhelming majority of the vote.

His reelection came amid criticism from opposition groups and international rights organizations concerning restrictions on political competition and the limited space available for dissent.

The Egyptian government has maintained that its policies are necessary to preserve national stability and prevent a return to the political turmoil that followed the 2011 uprising against longtime President Hosni Mubarak.

Despite Sisi’s latest assurances, speculation about another extension of his presidency has intensified in recent weeks.

Supporters of the president have reportedly been promoting a campaign calling for him to seek a fourth term after 2030, arguing that Egypt requires continuity of leadership as it confronts major economic and regional challenges.

The campaign has been advanced by pro-government political figures and social media accounts associated with Sisi’s supporters, prompting renewed discussion about whether another constitutional amendment could be proposed.

Sisi’s declaration Saturday appeared intended to bring that debate to an end, although questions remain about how Egypt will manage the transition and who might emerge as his eventual successor.

Additional details emerging from Sisi’s speech indicate that the proposed leadership program would be considerably more extensive than an ordinary government training course.

The president said the initiative could accommodate as many as 1,000 participants, with candidates generally expected to be between 40 and 50 years old and to possess doctoral qualifications from recognized Egyptian or international universities.

The 30-month course would involve more than 7,500 hours of instruction, with the armed forces sponsoring the program. Participants would undergo interviews and screening before admission, although the precise eligibility requirements have not yet been finalized.

Sisi argued that Egypt must begin preparing capable leaders well before the next presidential election rather than wait until his departure becomes imminent.

He expressed confidence that the country could produce leaders more capable than himself and urged Egyptians to support the effort to develop a new generation of public officials.

The president also indicated that he wanted to ensure Egypt possessed a sufficiently qualified pool of potential successors before he left office, emphasizing the importance of protecting the country’s institutions and maintaining stability during the transition.

His proposal nevertheless raises broader questions about the military’s influence over Egypt’s political future.

Under Sisi, the Egyptian Military Academy has increasingly assumed responsibilities extending beyond the training of military officers. Civilian government employees, including diplomats, teachers and religious officials, have been required to undergo training at the institution as part of their professional preparation.

Critics have argued that this arrangement further strengthens the military’s influence over civilian institutions, while the government presents it as a means of improving administrative standards and reinforcing national unity.

The proposed leadership program could extend that model to the country’s highest political offices, although it remains unclear whether participation would eventually become a prerequisite for presidential candidates.

Sisi also called for legislation reinforcing the constitutional responsibility of Egypt’s armed forces to protect the state, its democratic institutions and its territorial integrity.

The president dismissed speculation that he was preparing a member of his family to inherit the presidency, rejecting suggestions that Egypt’s leadership would be transferred through a family succession arrangement.

The succession discussion comes at a difficult time for Egypt’s economy. The country continues to face pressure from elevated living costs, substantial public debt, expensive energy imports and reduced revenues from the Suez Canal, which has been affected by regional security disruptions.

Those economic challenges have increased public concern about the government’s ability to maintain subsidies, finance essential services and generate employment for Egypt’s growing population.

Sisi has defended his administration’s extensive infrastructure investments and economic reforms as necessary for the country’s long-term development, while critics have questioned the costs and priorities of some major government projects.

The president’s remarks Saturday also addressed Egypt’s regional security responsibilities, particularly its relationship with Saudi Arabia.

Amid escalating tensions involving the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen, Sisi declared that Egypt would be prepared to take necessary measures to defend Saudi Arabia if Riyadh requested assistance.

He indicated that any such military action would require parliamentary authorization and said he would seek an emergency session of the legislature if circumstances demanded it.

The statement underscored the importance Cairo attaches to its relationship with Saudi Arabia, which has provided Egypt with substantial financial support and remains a central partner in regional security affairs.

{Matzav.com}

Illegal crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border have fallen to their lowest annual level in nearly six decades, with Border Patrol agents recording fewer than 100,000 apprehensions during the 2026 fiscal year, according to Department of Homeland Security figures released Friday. The dramatic decline comes amid President Donald Trump’s sweeping immigration enforcement measures, which have sharply reduced the number of migrants attempting to enter the United States illegally.

Border Patrol agents apprehended 98,708 individuals crossing the southern border between official ports of entry during the fiscal year that ended September 30. The figure represents an extraordinary reversal from 2022 and 2023, when annual apprehensions surpassed 2 million.

The latest total marks the lowest annual number since 1968, when Border Patrol agents reported 96,641 apprehensions. The figures underscore how substantially migration patterns have changed following successive restrictions imposed by the Biden and Trump administrations.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin pointed to the new statistics as evidence that the administration’s immigration policies are producing results.

“The results could not be clearer: strong enforcement works,” Mullin said.

Although the decline began during the final months of Joe Biden’s presidency, when Washington imposed tougher asylum rules and Mexican authorities stepped up efforts to intercept migrants, the numbers continued falling after Trump returned to the White House in January 2025.

Trump substantially curtailed the ability of migrants to seek asylum at the southern border while simultaneously intensifying immigration arrests, detention operations and deportations throughout the country. Together, those measures have changed the calculations facing people considering an unauthorized journey into the United States.

Adam Isacson, a senior associate at the Washington Office on Latin America, attributed much of the decline to the administration’s restrictions on asylum applications.

“The overwhelming reason for the drop in migration is the disappearance of the right to apply for asylum at the border,” Isacson said.

The restrictions have also influenced where migrants choose to go. Some have abandoned plans to travel north and remained in their countries of origin, while others have established themselves in Mexico rather than attempting to cross into the United States.

Mexico has maintained strict policies toward migrants traveling primarily for economic reasons, but its asylum system continues to offer protection to certain people fleeing persecution and other dangers. That distinction has made Mexico an alternative destination for some migrants who previously intended to seek asylum in the United States.

The contrast with the height of the Biden-era border crisis is striking. During that administration, monthly apprehensions at the southern border repeatedly climbed above 200,000, placing enormous pressure on federal immigration authorities and communities receiving newly arrived migrants.

Many of those making the journey came from countries experiencing severe economic distress, political upheaval or widespread violence, including Haiti and Venezuela. Migrants and immigration specialists said the perception that Biden’s policies were more accommodating contributed to the willingness of large numbers of people to undertake the trip.

The unprecedented influx became a major vulnerability for Democrats during the 2024 presidential campaign. Trump repeatedly emphasized the need to restore control over the southern border and made tougher immigration enforcement one of the defining promises of his successful bid to return to the White House.

Since taking office, Trump has extended his enforcement strategy beyond the border itself. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations inside the United States have increased concerns among undocumented immigrants that they could face arrest and removal even after successfully entering the country.

Isacson said that prospect has become an additional deterrent for people who might otherwise attempt to evade Border Patrol agents and enter the country without requesting asylum.

“Even if you’re thinking of becoming a traditional non-asylum-seeking migrant who wants to evade apprehension, you’re probably not going to risk all of that just to have to dodge ICE raids once you arrive here,” Isacson said.

Federal figures released in July showed that 65,765 individuals were being held in ICE detention facilities, illustrating the scale of the administration’s detention and deportation efforts.

The makeup of the migrant population encountered along the southern border has also shifted. Mexican men traveling without accompanying family members now constitute the largest group apprehended by Border Patrol agents, replacing the broader mix of nationalities and family groups that characterized much of the earlier migration surge.

According to Isacson, some of those apprehended may be Mexican nationals who were previously deported and are attempting to return to relatives, employment or communities they left behind in the United States.

Mexican government figures indicate that more than 271,000 Mexican nationals were deported from the United States between Trump’s inauguration in January 2025 and the middle of August 2026. Most were returned across the land border.

The sharp reduction in border crossings has also changed the political conversation as Americans prepare for the November midterm elections. Immigration, which dominated national debate during the 2024 presidential contest, has receded as an immediate concern for many voters, according to recent polling.

Economic issues, particularly household expenses and the rising cost of living, have increasingly moved to the forefront of voters’ concerns, even as the administration points to the historically low border apprehension figures as a major accomplishment of Trump’s immigration agenda.

Additional federal statistics released with the annual report show that the drop extended beyond apprehensions along the Mexican border. Customs and Border Protection recorded 379,243 encounters nationwide during fiscal 2026, the lowest annual total in the agency’s history, according to preliminary government figures.

The Department of Homeland Security said southwest border apprehensions were approximately 95 percent below the annual average recorded during the Biden administration. The entire fiscal year’s total of 98,708 was also roughly 60 percent lower than the 249,740 apprehensions recorded during the single busiest month of the previous administration.

Federal officials reported another milestone: Border Patrol completed the entire fiscal year without releasing any apprehended migrants into the United States. September marked the seventeenth consecutive month of zero such releases, according to the department.

The administration has also committed substantial resources to physical border security. Customs and Border Protection reported obligating $34.3 billion between September 2025 and September 2026 toward Smart Wall projects spanning the southwestern border states, including additional barriers and surveillance infrastructure.

Beyond immigration enforcement, the agency reported increased drug interdictions during the fiscal year. Preliminary figures showed nearly 1 million pounds of narcotics seized, approximately 63 percent above the average annual amount confiscated during the preceding four years.

Customs officials also reported intercepting more than 4,000 shipments valued at over $325 million because of suspected links to forced labor. Separately, agents confiscated approximately 55.5 million counterfeit items with an estimated value exceeding $12.6 billion, according to the agency’s figures.

{Matzav.com}

[COMMUNICATED]

Spare the Child is a unique, life-changing 12-session parenting series led by R’ DanielWhitman, given on behalf of Rabbi Yechiel Yaakovson, author of the bestseller Spare the Child, sharing a Torah-rooted approach to understanding and building your children

Course begins November 2! Sign up TODAY!

For sample classes and more info click HERE!

Or call: 732-933-4392

Major traffic disruptions are expected across central Israel on Sunday morning as members of the chareidi faction known as the Ratzpanikim prepare to stage demonstrations and block major highways in protest of the arrest and imprisonment of two yeshiva bochurim.

The demonstrations were called at the direction of Rav Tzvi Friedman amid growing anger over the Israeli military’s continued arrest of yeshiva students who have not reported for army service.

The protests are expected to focus on the Gush Dan metropolitan area and surrounding communities, where demonstrators intend to disrupt traffic on several heavily traveled roads.

The immediate trigger for the demonstrations was the arrest of two yeshiva bochurim in Rishon Lezion who were subsequently sentenced to 20 days in military prison.

One of those arrested has been identified as Yedidya Mizrachi, a talmid of Yeshivas Ohr Hachaim.

Members of the Ratzpanikim faction view the arrests as part of what they describe as an escalating campaign against the yeshiva world, arguing that the imprisonment of bochurim for refusing military service represents an attack on their ability to continue learning Torah.

The demonstrations are intended to express opposition to the arrests and demand an end to the imprisonment of yeshiva students over their military enlistment status.

Among the locations identified as potential protest sites are Highway 4 in both directions near Bnei Brak, Geha Junction, Ganot Interchange and the entrances and exits of Givat Shmuel.

These roads are among the principal transportation arteries serving central Israel, and blockages could cause significant delays for motorists traveling through the Bnei Brak area and the greater Tel Aviv region.

Drivers planning to travel through the affected areas are being advised to anticipate heavy congestion, consider alternate routes and follow police announcements regarding road closures and traffic arrangements.

The two arrests took place Thursday night into Friday, October 16, when Israeli police detained the bochurim in Rishon Lezion and transferred them to military police custody. Both are students at Yeshivas Ohr Hachaim in the Armon Hanatziv neighborhood of Yerushalayim, according to additional reporting.

The two were subsequently sentenced to 20 days of confinement in military prison, renewing protests over the enforcement of enlistment requirements against yeshiva students.

The latest planned demonstrations follow a series of similar protests organized by followers of Rav Friedman in recent months. The group, which broke away from the broader Peleg Yerushalmi movement, has repeatedly organized road blockages in response to the arrest of bochurim who did not report to military induction centers.

On October 8, hundreds of demonstrators blocked Highway 4 near Bnei Brak, bringing traffic to a standstill in both directions. Police deployed mounted officers and stun grenades during efforts to disperse protesters, while separate demonstrations in Yerushalayim disrupted traffic near the entrance to the city and affected light rail service.

Similar confrontations occurred in August, when followers of Rav Friedman blocked Geha Junction following the arrest of another yeshiva student and his transfer to military authorities.

{Matzav.com}

LISTEN:

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

LISTEN:

In a significant development in Israel’s chareidi political landscape, Rav Shaul Alter has instructed members of his kehillah to vote for United Torah Judaism in the upcoming Knesset elections, marking a dramatic departure from years in which the community refrained from endorsing the party.

The announcement was delivered on Motzoei Shabbos, October 17, at the conclusion of Seudah Shlishis in the community’s bais medrash on Yosef Ziv Street in Yerushalayim. Rav Yechezkel Halperin, a gabbai of the kehillah, read the directive in Yiddish in the presence of Rav Alter, making clear that the instruction was being issued on the Rosh Yeshiva’s behalf.

The decision is particularly noteworthy because it comes while the main Gur chassidus, headed by the Gerrer Rebbe, has yet to issue a public endorsement of United Torah Judaism, despite the approaching October 27 election and the prominent position of Gur representative Yitzchok Goldknopf on the party’s Knesset list.

The directive from Rav Alter’s community emphasized the serious challenges currently confronting chareidi Jewry in Eretz Yisroel, particularly those studying Torah, and declared that the circumstances require both tefillah and practical political involvement.

In the announcement, delivered in Rav Alter’s name, Rav Halperin stated:

“The chareidi Jewish community in Eretz Yisroel is facing a difficult situation, particularly those who study Torah. Certainly, according to the Jewish outlook, the appropriate response is prayer and supplication before the Creator. However, we are not exempt from making our own efforts. Therefore, following the path of our holy rabbeim, we will participate in the upcoming elections and vote for United Torah Judaism, the letter Gimmel. Those who are suited to doing so should also make efforts, according to their abilities, to help the list succeed. Salvation comes from Hashem.”

The declaration was an English translation of the Yiddish announcement, which was also circulated in Hebrew following Shabbos.

Beyond instructing members to cast their ballots for United Torah Judaism, the message encouraged those capable of assisting the party’s election campaign to become involved in efforts to secure its success.

The announcement represents a notable change in the political position of Rav Alter’s kehillah, commonly known as Kehillas Pnei Menachem, which emerged following the well-publicized split within Gur several years ago.

Since its establishment as a separate community, Rav Alter’s followers have generally avoided formally supporting United Torah Judaism, a party in which the main Gur chassidus has traditionally exercised considerable influence through its representation in Agudas Yisroel.

The decision to openly endorse the party is therefore being viewed as a significant political development, particularly given the complicated relationships among the various factions within the chassidishe political establishment.

The timing has added to its importance.

With approximately ten days remaining until the election, the main Gur leadership has not yet publicly instructed its chassidim to support United Torah Judaism, creating uncertainty over the party’s ability to mobilize one of its traditional voting blocs.

The situation is especially striking because Goldknopf, who represents Gur in the Knesset, occupies the second position on the United Torah Judaism slate.

The absence of an endorsement from the main Gur leadership comes amid internal disagreements within Agudas Yisroel concerning political representation, the distribution of positions and the arrangements involving Shlomei Emunim and Belz.

Recent understandings between the Shlomei Emunim faction and Belz have complicated the political picture, while questions remain about the future relationship between Gur and the other components of United Torah Judaism.

According to reports in the Israeli chareidi media, the Gerrer Rebbe has kept his intentions regarding the election closely guarded, with Goldknopf among the few individuals involved in discussions on the matter.

One report indicated that Goldknopf had been instructed to maintain discretion regarding those conversations, although no official explanation has been issued by the Gur leadership.

At the same time, observers have cautioned that the absence of an endorsement at this stage does not necessarily mean that Gur intends to withhold support from the party.

An examination of previous election campaigns found that Gur has often issued its voting instructions approximately one week to ten days before an election. An announcement in the coming days would therefore still fall within the general timetable followed in previous campaigns.

Nevertheless, the contrast between the two communities has attracted considerable attention.

At the bais medrash of Rav Shaul Alter, a clear and public directive has now been issued to vote for United Torah Judaism. At the main Gur bais medrash on Yirmiyahu Street, no corresponding instruction has yet been announced.

The development is also unfolding against the backdrop of the continuing controversy surrounding military conscription of bnei yeshivos and the broader political challenges facing the chareidi community.

The status of yeshiva students, efforts to advance legislation addressing their military exemptions and the possibility of additional enforcement measures have become central issues in the election campaign.

Rav Alter’s directive specifically referred to the difficult circumstances facing Torah learners, presenting electoral participation as a necessary form of hishtadlus alongside tefillah.

The announcement did not address the internal disagreements within United Torah Judaism or offer an explanation for the community’s departure from its previous electoral position.

It also did not indicate whether Rav Alter’s endorsement reflected any agreement with party representatives or other political figures.

Rather, the message focused on the broader circumstances facing chareidi Jewry and the obligation, in the Rosh Yeshiva’s view, to participate in the electoral process.

The announcement was documented on video and quickly circulated throughout the Israeli chareidi community on Motzoei Shabbos, drawing attention to the unusual political alignment.

For United Torah Judaism, the endorsement provides an additional source of support at a time when the party is navigating internal tensions and uncertainty surrounding its traditional chassidishe constituencies.

For Rav Alter’s kehillah, it marks a departure from the political distance the community has maintained from the party since separating from the main Gur chassidus.

As the October 27 election approaches, attention now turns to whether the Gerrer Rebbe will issue an endorsement of United Torah Judaism and how the unresolved disagreements within Agudas Yisroel will affect the party’s campaign.