Feed aggregator

A federal judge on Monday dismissed criminal charges against two former senior FBI officials accused of lying to Congress about the bureau’s handling of investigations involving Hunter Biden, delivering a blistering rebuke of the Justice Department and accusing the Trump administration of rushing a politically motivated prosecution just ahead of Tuesday’s midterm elections.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui, presiding in federal court in Washington, D.C., threw out the case against Nikki Cole Floris and Bradley Benavides after determining that prosecutors had failed to establish sufficient evidence that either former official knowingly made false statements to congressional investigators. The ruling followed a series of contentious hearings during which the judge repeatedly questioned the government’s handling of the investigation and its unusual charging procedures.

“What has transpired here cannot be described as anything other than weaponization,” Faruqui declared from the bench, sharply criticizing the Justice Department’s decision to pursue the case in the final weeks before a closely contested national election.

The judge described the prosecution as a “rush job” and pointed to evidence indicating that the investigation had been initiated at the direction of senior administration officials, including FBI Director Kash Patel, following public statements by President Trump concerning alleged misconduct by federal intelligence agencies.

Floris and Benavides previously held senior positions in the FBI’s counterintelligence division, where they helped oversee the bureau’s Foreign Influence Task Force. The unit was responsible for investigating foreign attempts to interfere in American elections, including efforts involving disinformation and intelligence operations.

The criminal allegations stemmed from separate interviews the two officials gave to the House Judiciary Committee in 2023 concerning their knowledge of FBI investigations involving Hunter Biden and material recovered from his laptop before the 2020 presidential election.

Prosecutors maintained that both officials had deliberately minimized their awareness of the bureau’s investigative activities, particularly an internal operation known as Round River, which examined informant reporting concerning Hunter Biden and whether certain information could have originated from Russian disinformation efforts.

According to the government, statements made by Floris and Benavides during their congressional interviews were contradicted by internal FBI records and accounts from other witnesses. Prosecutors argued that the discrepancies demonstrated an effort to conceal the task force’s involvement in politically sensitive investigations.

Faruqui rejected the government’s contention that the evidence established probable cause to proceed. After examining the alleged false statements individually, the judge concluded that some were not demonstrably false, while others could reasonably have resulted from faulty recollection rather than intentional deception.

The judge also expressed concern about the circumstances under which the investigation began. During an earlier hearing, FBI agent Bryan Witt testified that Patel had assigned the matter to the bureau’s Kansas City field office following a July address by Trump in which the president called for renewed scrutiny of allegations that intelligence agencies had suppressed information concerning Chinese interference in the 2020 election.

Witt acknowledged under questioning that the assignment was unusual and that he had worried the investigation would be perceived as politically motivated. The inquiry subsequently shifted toward the congressional testimony of Floris and Benavides concerning Hunter Biden.

The prosecution encountered additional difficulties last week when Justice Department attorneys attempted to file an amended criminal complaint adding an obstruction charge without first obtaining the required judicial approval.

Faruqui reacted angrily to the filing, which appeared on the court’s public docket after midnight without a judge’s signature or sworn authorization. He said the procedure departed from established practice and raised serious questions about the government’s conduct.

The court struck the amended complaint from the record, leaving prosecutors to defend their original allegations at a preliminary hearing. Monday’s ruling dismissed those remaining charges as well.

The judge also questioned why prosecutors had chosen to initiate the felony case through a criminal complaint rather than first obtaining an indictment from a federal grand jury. Although the procedure is legally permissible, it is unusual in a case of this nature, particularly when the alleged offenses occurred several years earlier.

Defense attorneys had argued that the government was attempting to use the criminal justice system to punish officials associated with investigations that have long angered Trump and his political supporters. They maintained that the case lacked sufficient evidence and had been accelerated to generate headlines before voters went to the polls.

The decision represents another setback for the Justice Department in its efforts to pursue criminal cases involving individuals connected to politically contentious investigations from Trump’s first administration and the 2020 election.

In recent weeks, federal prosecutors have also pursued additional legal action involving former FBI Director James Comey, while other investigations have targeted individuals who have publicly criticized the president. The administration has maintained that its law enforcement efforts are intended to address alleged wrongdoing, while critics have accused officials of pursuing political retaliation.

Monday’s dismissal does not necessarily prevent prosecutors from attempting to revive the case. The Justice Department could still seek an indictment from a federal grand jury if it believes sufficient evidence exists to support criminal charges.

For now, however, the ruling brings an abrupt end to a prosecution that had become increasingly contentious, with a federal judge finding that the government had failed to meet even the preliminary evidentiary threshold required to proceed against the two former FBI officials.

It is with great sadness that Matzav.com reports the petirah of Rebbetzin Chana Greenbaum a”h, daughter of the legendary Torah pioneer Rav Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz zt”l, who was niftar at the age of 104.

The Rebbetzin was the daughter of one of the notable figures in the establishment of Torah chinuch in the United States, a man whose extraordinary vision, determination, and mesirus nefesh helped transform the American Jewish landscape. Rav Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz, the legendary menahel of Yeshiva Torah Vodaas and the driving force behind the creation of Torah Umesorah, was instrumental in laying the foundations for the flourishing network of yeshivos and Jewish day schools that would eventually spread throughout the country.

Born into a family at the very center of that historic undertaking, Rebbetzin Greenbaum witnessed an era when the future of Torah in America was far from assured. Her father’s generation confronted enormous challenges in establishing institutions where Jewish children could receive a genuine Torah education, and the remarkable growth of the American Torah community over the ensuing decades represented the fulfillment of the dreams for which he had devoted his life.

Rebbetzin Greenbaum was the wife of Rav Dov Greenbaum zt”l, a distinguished rov and mechanech who played an important role in the development of Torah education in Rockland County, New York. Together, they were part of the generation that helped establish the infrastructure of Torah life in communities that would eventually become major centers of Yiddishkeit.

Rav Dov Greenbaum, who learned under Rav Shlomo Heiman and received semichah from him in 1941, served as a rov in Jersey City, New Jersey, before becoming a prominent figure in Jewish education in Spring Valley. The couple married in 1943, during the difficult years of World War II, when the American yeshiva world was still in its infancy.

In 1951, Rav Greenbaum assumed leadership of the then nascent Yeshiva of Spring Valley that had approximately 30 students and faced serious financial and organizational difficulties. Through his efforts and those of other dedicated individuals, the institution was revitalized and developed into a significant center of Torah education. By 1983, the school had grown to an enrollment exceeding 700 students, reflecting the dramatic transformation of Jewish life in Rockland County.

As the Orthodox community expanded, Rav Greenbaum became a respected spokesman and communal leader, frequently consulted on matters affecting Jewish education and the broader community. His work was recognized in a tribute entered into the Congressional Record in February 1983, following his passing the previous year. The tribute also recorded his marriage to Chana Mendlowitz, daughter of Rav Shraga Feivel, and described the family’s central place in the community.

The history of the Greenbaum family is closely intertwined with the growth of Torah life in America. Rav Shraga Feivel, who was niftar in 1948, had helped establish a model of Torah education that would shape generations of American Jewry. His influence extended well beyond Yeshiva Torah Vodaas, encompassing the development of Mesivta Torah Vodaas, Bais Medrash Elyon, and the nationwide Torah Umesorah movement, which sought to ensure that Jewish children throughout the United States would have access to a Torah education.

At a time when many believed that the traditional European yeshiva system could never take root on American soil, Rav Shraga Feivel maintained an unwavering conviction that Torah could flourish in the New World. He inspired and guided a generation of mechanchim, roshei yeshiva, and communal activists who carried his vision into cities and towns across the country. The institutions that emerged from those efforts would become the foundation of the American Torah community as it exists today.

Rebbetzin Greenbaum lived to see the extraordinary realization of that vision. During her lifetime, the American Torah world grew from a relatively small collection of struggling institutions into a vast network of yeshivos, Bais Yaakov schools, kollelim, and thriving Torah communities. Her own family was among those who contributed to that remarkable development.

Her husband was niftar in 1982, more than four decades before her own petirah. A tribute delivered in the United States House of Representatives by Congressman Benjamin Gilman in 1983 recognized Rav Greenbaum’s devotion to Jewish education and his important role in the development of the Spring Valley community. The tribute reflected the esteem in which he was held by both Jewish communal leaders and public officials.

Rebbetzin Greenbaum’s passing follows the petirah earlier this year of her sister, Rebbetzin Shulamis Schiff a”h, the wife of Rav Shea Schiff zt”l, longtime rosh yeshiva of Mesivta Bais Shraga in Monsey. Rebbetzin Schiff, the youngest daughter of Rav Shraga Feivel, was niftar in July at the age of 98. Her passing, and now that of Rebbetzin Greenbaum, marks the passing of members of a family whose roots reach back to the earliest chapters of the American Torah renaissance.

Rebbetzin Greenbaum is survived by her five children, Reb Shlomo Greenbaum, Reb Shraga Greenbaum, Mrs. Risky Kirzner, Mrs. Yehudis Shain, and Mrs. Mimi Rosenbaum, and many grandchildren.

Yehi zichrah boruch.

{Matzav.com}

U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee has endorsed Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s opposition to including Arab political parties in Israel’s next governing coalition, arguing that lawmakers who refuse to condemn Hamas and openly criticize the Jewish state should not be entrusted with positions of national leadership.

Speaking with Newsmax host Tom Basile on Saturday, Huckabee described Netanyahu’s refusal to form a government with the predominantly Arab Joint List and Ra’am factions as “a necessary course,” citing the positions taken by some Arab representatives in the Knesset.

The ambassador pointed to the 19 Arab lawmakers elected to Israel’s parliament, saying that some “have been outspoken in their condemnation of the very nation they want to be a part of,” raising serious questions about their suitability for participation in the governing coalition.

Huckabee also criticized what he characterized as the failure of certain Arab legislators to unequivocally denounce the October 7, 2023, Hamas massacre. He argued that “it would be troubling for anyone to include them if that’s going to be their position in a government.”

According to Huckabee, seeking a role in governing Israel while refusing to condemn the Hamas atrocities was “completely reckless,” particularly for politicians seeking to “help lead the country.”

The ambassador also predicted that some Israeli politicians would abandon their campaign promises about refusing to join coalitions with particular rivals once negotiations over forming a government begin.

“Throw all that out the window,” he said. “Politicians say that during the election season, but if it comes down to being in the government or having nothing but a trip home and spend the next four years wondering what happened, many of them will, let’s just say, they’ll renege on that ‘absolutely, will not sit with’ promise.”

Turning to last week’s Israeli elections, Huckabee described the performance of Netanyahu and his right-wing allies as “the big surprise” of election night, noting that they had finished ahead of the opposition bloc led by Yashar party chairman Gadi Eisenkot.

He also discussed the unusually large number of Israelis who returned from abroad specifically to cast their ballots. According to Huckabee, approximately 160,000 Israeli citizens flew into the country for Election Day because Israel generally does not permit absentee voting.

The ambassador said many political observers had assumed that the influx of returning voters would work against Netanyahu, but the election results challenged that expectation.

“Many people saw that influx of voters as coming in to vote against the prime minister. Obviously they were wrong about that,” Huckabee continued.

Huckabee also weighed in on an Israeli security investigation into allegations that foreign governments attempted to influence the election by secretly financing political activity in Arab communities. Reports have identified Qatar and Turkey as possible sources of illicit funding, although investigators have not established whether the allegations are substantiated.

The Shin Bet has been examining intelligence concerning possible foreign interference, with reports indicating that the Mossad has also become involved. Huckabee described the inquiry as “a very serious and a full-level investigation.”

He warned that confirmation of foreign interference could “really stir up some very strong feelings in Israel,” while emphasizing that the authorities have yet to reach definitive conclusions. “We don’t know the results of that investigation,” he said.

Israel’s Central Elections Committee has meanwhile rejected allegations that the election was systematically compromised, and the Shin Bet has stressed that its investigation should not be interpreted as casting suspicion on Arab voters generally. Netanyahu’s Likud party has alleged that the election was stolen, while opposition leaders have accused the prime minister of attempting to discredit the results.

The final vote count left Netanyahu’s bloc with 53 seats in the 120-member Knesset, compared with 48 for the Jewish opposition parties and 19 for the Arab factions. Neither major bloc independently commands the 61 seats required to form a government, leaving coalition negotiations particularly complicated. The Arab parties’ combined representation represents a significant increase from the previous Knesset.

Addressing the broader relationship between Washington and Yerushalayim, Huckabee rejected criticism of American support for Israel and emphasized the security advantages that the partnership provides the United States.

“What we share in intelligence actually saves American lives almost every day,” the ambassador said, arguing that intelligence cooperation between the two countries is a vital component of American national security.

“The relationship we have with Israel is very important, both strategically as well as tactically, in making sure that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and that they’re going to decide to be civilized people and not continue the murderous threats that the regime has been throwing out there for 47 years,” Huckabee concluded.

{Matzav.com}

President Trump has sharply condemned a reported $50 million business arrangement involving his longtime attorney Alina Habba Mildon, who allegedly negotiated the lucrative agreement with the family of a Venezuelan banker while serving as a federal prosecutor in New Jersey. The controversy has raised questions about the timing of the contract and its connection to a banker who subsequently received a presidential pardon.

Speaking to reporters Saturday at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, Trump made clear that he disapproved of the arrangement. “I thought it was totally obnoxious and outrageous, and it’s not acceptable,” the president said. “Not ​acceptable at all.”

The dispute centers on an agreement reportedly reached between Habba Mildon and a company associated with the family of Julio Herrera Velutini, a Venezuelan banker who had faced federal bribery charges before entering into a plea agreement in August 2025.

According to reporting by The New York Times, Herrera Velutini’s family agreed to compensate Habba Mildon with a package valued at more than $50 million over four years. The arrangement reportedly provided for an annual payment of $10 million, along with additional performance-based bonuses.

Trump said he had personally informed Habba Mildon that he opposed her receiving the money, describing the entire situation as “terrible.”

The agreement was reportedly signed in late October 2025, shortly after Concord Partners, the company associated with Herrera Velutini’s family, was formally established. At the time, Habba Mildon was serving as acting U.S. attorney for New Jersey, a position she had assumed earlier that year.

Her tenure as the state’s top federal prosecutor had already become the subject of legal challenges. A federal court ultimately determined that she was not lawfully serving in the position, leading to her departure from the U.S. attorney’s office on December 8, 2025.

That same day, Habba Mildon received a new appointment as a senior adviser to the U.S. attorney general. According to the Times, she remained in that Justice Department position when she began working for Concord Partners on January 1, 2026.

Two weeks later, on January 15, Trump granted Herrera Velutini a presidential pardon, according to official Justice Department records. The sequence of events has drawn scrutiny because of the substantial compensation involved and Habba Mildon’s longstanding relationship with the president.

Habba Mildon has categorically rejected suggestions that her employment was connected to Herrera Velutini’s pardon. In a statement issued last week, she insisted that she never received compensation for arranging clemency, never discussed a pardon with White House or Justice Department officials, and never performed any work intended to secure a pardon for anyone.

The New York Times has also reported that Trump privately expressed anger over the arrangement and suggested that some of the money should be directed toward his future presidential library or another organization associated with him. The president reportedly communicated his opposition to further payments under the contract, although it remains unclear whether the agreement can be terminated before its four-year term expires.

The controversy has attracted additional attention because Herrera Velutini’s daughter, Isabela Herrera, reportedly contributed $3.5 million to a political action committee supporting Trump while her father was seeking clemency. The reported donation and subsequent employment agreement have prompted questions about possible influence, although neither establishes that the pardon was improperly obtained.

The White House has denied that Habba Mildon’s employment arrangement played any role in the president’s decision to pardon Herrera Velutini. The Justice Department has not publicly announced any findings of wrongdoing related to the contract.

President Donald Trump says he is prepared to grant sweeping preemptive pardons to members of his administration and political allies if Democrats gain control of Congress and attempt to pursue criminal cases against those who served under him, signaling that he will use his presidential clemency powers to shield his team from politically motivated prosecutions.

In an interview with Miranda Devine on the New York Post’s “Pod Force One” podcast, Trump was asked whether he would consider issuing pardons before any charges were brought against administration officials. “I would if I needed to. Sure,” the president responded.

When pressed on whether such protection could extend to everyone who had served in his administration, Trump made clear that he was willing to take that step. “I’d do it,” he said. “I did it for J6.”

The president was referring to his January 20, 2025, decision to grant clemency to approximately 1,500 people charged or convicted in connection with the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. The action, taken immediately upon his return to the White House, fulfilled a major campaign promise and eliminated federal criminal exposure for a broad group of defendants.

Trump also invoked President Joe Biden’s controversial use of preemptive pardons during the final hours of his administration. Biden issued clemency to Dr. Anthony Fauci, retired Gen. Mark Milley, members and staff of the congressional January 6 investigation, and several relatives. Biden had separately pardoned his son Hunter in December 2024.

“That’s what Biden did. He gave everybody a pardon,” Trump said, pointing to the precedent established by his predecessor. He again criticized the congressional investigation into January 6, referring to the panel as “the unselect committee” and “a corrupt committee.”

Trump’s comments come amid increasingly aggressive rhetoric from some Democratic lawmakers about pursuing investigations and potential criminal prosecutions of administration officials should their party regain congressional power. Although Congress cannot itself bring criminal charges, Democratic control of the House or Senate would provide lawmakers with expanded investigative authority, including the ability to issue subpoenas and conduct oversight hearings.

One of the most explicit warnings came from Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a Michigan Democrat, who said during an October appearance at the University of Chicago that Democrats should pursue “signature cases” targeting “the people who enable” Trump. Slotkin suggested that such prosecutions could discourage younger conservatives from accepting positions in a future Republican administration.

The president’s willingness to consider preemptive pardons raises the possibility of another major confrontation over executive clemency. Under the Constitution, presidents possess broad authority to pardon federal offenses, including certain offenses for which charges have not yet been filed. That power does not extend to state crimes, and a pardon cannot protect someone against criminal conduct committed after the pardon is issued.

The issue could become particularly significant if Democrats emerge from the midterm elections with control of one or both chambers of Congress. Trump has not announced any specific pardon recipients or indicated when he might act, but his remarks make clear that he is prepared to use the authority if he believes his officials are facing retaliatory prosecution.

The controversy has already produced a formal ethics complaint against Slotkin. A University of Chicago student submitted the complaint to the Senate Select Committee on Ethics on October 22, alleging that her comments amounted to an effort to intimidate prospective government employees. Slotkin has rejected the criticism as “manufactured outrage,” maintaining that her objective is to discourage unlawful conduct rather than legitimate political participation.

Trump also addressed the possibility of Democrats targeting billionaire Elon Musk, who has maintained close ties to the president and his administration. “It’s talk. But if it is talk, we’ll have to protect them,” Trump said, suggesting that his willingness to intervene could extend beyond government employees to other prominent allies.

The president’s remarks come just one day before Tuesday’s midterm elections, with control of Congress at stake and both parties preparing for the possibility of a sharply divided government. Democrats have discussed investigations into alleged corruption and potential abuses of executive authority, while Trump has indicated that he would resist efforts to use congressional oversight and criminal investigations against his administration.

{Matzav.com}

Several chareidi protesters, including teenagers and a pregnant woman, were injured during violent overnight confrontations with Israeli police in Yerushalayim and Beit Shemesh, as disturbing footage emerged showing officers throwing stun grenades toward demonstrators, including individuals sitting on the roadway.

The clashes erupted during protests over the arrest of newlywed yeshiva bochur Yaari Lieberman, who was reportedly detained in front of his wife while the couple was traveling to a sheva brachos celebration. His arrest triggered widespread anger in the chareidi community and demonstrations against the military’s detention of yeshiva students.

Among the most seriously injured was a 21-year-old man who suffered severe injuries to his lower extremities and was transported in moderate condition to the trauma unit at Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Yerushalayim. Initial reports raised concerns that several of his toes had been severely damaged, although medical authorities had not confirmed that any toes had been amputated or that amputation would be necessary.

According to United Hatzalah, emergency responders treated several additional casualties during the disturbances in Beit Shemesh. A 15-year-old boy sustained moderate injuries in an incident involving a concrete road barrier, while another 15-year-old suffered minor injuries in a separate incident involving a barrier.

A third 15-year-old was moderately injured after being struck in the chest by a grenade. A 14-year-old boy sustained injuries to his limbs from a stun grenade, while a 36-year-old expectant mother also required medical attention and was listed in mild-to-moderate condition.

Footage circulating from the demonstrations appeared to show police officers deploying stun grenades at close range near groups of chareidi protesters, including some who were seated on the pavement. The recordings prompted criticism over the manner in which officers employed crowd-control weapons capable of causing serious injuries.

Safety regulations governing stun grenades prohibit throwing them directly at a person’s body or upper torso and require officers to deploy the devices in accordance with established operational procedures.

Israeli journalist Liran Tamari sharply criticized the police response, writing, “Time and again, police officers are throwing stun grenades at chareidi protesters sitting on the road.”

Tamari questioned whether similar police conduct would have been tolerated had the demonstrators belonged to another sector of Israeli society. He also raised concerns about the apparent lack of investigations into previous incidents in which chareidi protesters were injured by stun grenades, contrasting those cases with investigations launched following police actions at other demonstrations.

The Israel Police, meanwhile, presented a sharply different account of the overnight disturbances, accusing hundreds of demonstrators in Beit Shemesh of throwing stones and other objects at officers, setting garbage dumpsters ablaze, and damaging public infrastructure.

Police also disputed the circumstances surrounding two injuries involving a concrete road barrier, asserting that the individuals apparently sustained their injuries while pushing the barrier themselves.

According to the police account, the incident occurred in an area where officers were not present.

That explanation, however, did not address the separate reports of protesters injured by stun grenades or the circumstances depicted in the videos showing officers deploying the devices near demonstrators.

Additional footage from Beit Shemesh reportedly showed Border Police officers striking demonstrators with batons, while other recordings showed stun grenades being thrown near people gathered in a public garden away from the main roadway. The circumstances surrounding those incidents have prompted calls for closer scrutiny of the police response.

In Yerushalayim, approximately 200 demonstrators blocked the light rail near the Shivtei Yisrael station and disrupted traffic along Chaim Bar-Lev Road. Police deployed a water cannon and stun grenades after declaring the gathering unlawful and ordering protesters to disperse. Officers said some demonstrators refused to leave and threw objects at police.

The protests followed Lieberman’s detention by undercover military police officers shortly after he stepped off a bus with his new wife. Lieberman, a talmid of Yeshivas Ohr Hachaim headed by Rav Reuven Elbaz, was sentenced to 20 days in military prison, prompting demands from chareidi leaders for his immediate release.

Israeli media reported that military authorities had used cellphone location information to track Lieberman after an earlier attempt to arrest him in Modiin was unsuccessful. That previous operation, in early October, had also sparked confrontations between police and chareidi residents.

Additional demonstrators gathered outside the military prison during the night, protesting the continued detention of yeshiva students over military enlistment.

By this morning, Lieberman had been released from military custody following intervention by chareidi political representatives and other officials. His release came after a night of serious injuries, extensive traffic disruptions, and mounting criticism of the police response to the demonstrations.

{Matzav.com}

Controversial conservative commentator Tucker Carlson has ignited a new controversy by alleging that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is pressuring President Donald Trump to authorize a nuclear attack on Iran within days, a sensational claim for which Carlson has offered no independently verifiable evidence. His allegations, which portray Netanyahu as driving American military policy for personal political reasons, have raised concerns about the potential for such rhetoric to fuel antisemitic conspiracy theories.

In a lengthy statement posted on X, Carlson claimed that the Trump administration was approaching a decision on whether to deploy nuclear weapons against an Iranian underground nuclear facility known as Pickaxe Mountain, located near Natanz.

“Under pressure from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Trump administration may be within days of launching a nuclear strike on Iran,” Carlson wrote.

Carlson alleged that Netanyahu has been repeatedly lobbying Trump to attack the heavily fortified facility, which Israeli intelligence reportedly suspects could be used for renewed Iranian uranium enrichment.

“Bibi calls Trump about it every day,” Carlson wrote, quoting an unnamed individual he described as familiar with the situation.

The commentator argued that the underground installation is protected by approximately 300 feet of granite, making it impossible for conventional American weapons to destroy the tunnels beneath the mountain. On that basis, he asserted that “The only military option is a nuclear strike.”

Although the facility’s depth presents a significant military challenge, Carlson’s assertion that nuclear weapons represent the only available option has not been established. A September analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies concluded that Pickaxe Mountain would be extremely difficult to destroy using conventional American bunker-busting weapons, but it did not recommend nuclear weapons as the solution.

The same analysis found substantial construction activity at the site during 2026, while cautioning that available satellite imagery could neither confirm nor disprove intelligence claims that Iran had moved uranium enrichment equipment into the underground complex.

Carlson went further by suggesting that Netanyahu’s alleged determination to escalate the conflict is connected to his political difficulties following Israel’s recent elections.

“Netanyahu must stay close to Trump. He needs this war,” Carlson wrote.

He suggested that Netanyahu could face renewed legal jeopardy if he lost power and claimed that continued military confrontation with Iran would help the Israeli leader maintain his political position.

Carlson also named several senior American officials, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, U.S. Central Command commander Brad Cooper, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, alleging that they were aligned with Netanyahu’s approach to Iran.

The allegations present Netanyahu as exercising extraordinary influence over Washington’s most consequential national security decisions. Critics of such rhetoric warn that claims of secret Israeli control over American leaders can echo longstanding antisemitic conspiracy theories, particularly when presented without substantiating evidence.

Carlson additionally claimed that Netanyahu secretly traveled to Abu Dhabi on September 27 in an unsuccessful effort to persuade the United Arab Emirates to support another military operation against Iran. He provided no independently verifiable documentation establishing that such a meeting occurred.

He also asserted that the Trump administration had altered American nuclear doctrine since February to make the first use of tactical nuclear weapons easier, another allegation that has not been publicly substantiated.

According to Carlson, the administration could reach a decision on nuclear action by November 7.

“Close observers say Trump is likely to decide by next weekend whether or not to use nuclear weapons,” he wrote.

Carlson warned that an American nuclear strike could contaminate the Persian Gulf, threaten regional water supplies, and create a dangerous precedent for other nuclear-armed countries. He further alleged that Russia had signaled that American nuclear action against Iran could provide justification for Moscow to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine.

Those warnings were presented alongside claims about secret diplomatic discussions, including Carlson’s assertion that Vice President JD Vance and presidential envoy Steve Witkoff were encouraging Trump to pursue negotiations rather than military escalation.

There have been genuine discussions between Washington and Yerushalayim about additional military action against Iran. According to reporting by Axios, Trump and Netanyahu spoke Saturday about the Iranian nuclear program and the possibility of renewed strikes following Tuesday’s American midterm elections.

The report indicated that Netanyahu favored moving more quickly toward military action, while Trump preferred allowing additional time for negotiations. Trump subsequently described the conversation as a “very good talk” and acknowledged that Iran was among the subjects discussed.

However, those reports concerned the possibility of renewed military strikes, not a confirmed plan to deploy nuclear weapons.

In fact, Trump explicitly rejected the need for nuclear weapons during an October 15 interview with Newsmax, even as he discussed the possibility of attacking Pickaxe Mountain.

“I wouldn’t use nuclear. We don’t have to,” Trump said.

Trump has repeatedly threatened conventional military action against the Iranian facility, maintaining that Tehran must not be allowed to rebuild its nuclear weapons capabilities.

“We can do that in 10 minutes. We have that planned. You can look at Pickaxe Mountain. We need to take care of that. We can do that very quickly,” Trump said in recent remarks.

Meanwhile, diplomatic efforts involving Qatar have continued, with mediators working to arrange further discussions between Washington and Tehran. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has indicated that Tehran remains open to diplomacy while seeking clarification of American proposals.

The dispute surrounding Carlson’s allegations comes at a sensitive time for American Jewish communities, where concerns about antisemitism remain elevated. His portrayal of Netanyahu as manipulating American officials into contemplating nuclear war raises particular concern because it can reinforce narratives alleging that Israel secretly dictates American foreign policy.

There is no verified evidence that Trump has authorized a nuclear attack, that Netanyahu has demanded one, or that the United States has secretly revised its nuclear doctrine to facilitate such an operation. Carlson’s claims remain allegations, while the administration’s publicly stated position continues to distinguish possible military action against Iran from the use of nuclear weapons.

{Matzav.com}

[Video below.] Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed has sparked fresh controversy just two days before the midterm elections after declaring during a nationally televised interview that Palestine has a right to exist while attaching conditions to his recognition of Israel’s right to exist.

The exchange aired Sunday evening on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” where correspondent Ross Douthat interviewed El-Sayed and his Republican opponent, Mike Rogers, in one of the country’s most closely watched Senate contests. The discussion exposed a sharp disagreement between the candidates over Israel, American foreign aid, and the future of the Middle East.

Asked whether Israel has a right to exist, El-Sayed initially redirected the discussion toward Palestinian statehood, questioning why he is repeatedly asked about Israel without being asked the equivalent question about Palestinians.

Douthat responded by asking whether Palestine has a right to exist. El-Sayed answered affirmatively and without qualification.

When Douthat then returned to the question of Israel, El-Sayed began to answer yes but immediately introduced a condition, saying, “If there is a shared understanding–”

The interviewer interrupted to challenge the distinction, prompting El-Sayed to elaborate on his position. The Democratic candidate argued that the question should be approached through the principles of equal rights and national self-determination rather than through the interests of either side.

El-Sayed explained that he supports peace, dignity, and self-determination for Palestinians and Jewish Israelis alike. He said he would support a two-state arrangement if both populations agreed to it on equal terms, but would also accept a single shared state if that were the outcome they chose.

The exchange immediately drew attention because El-Sayed had offered an unequivocal affirmative answer regarding Palestinian statehood while making his recognition of Israel contingent on a mutually agreed political arrangement. His comments also left open the possibility of replacing the existing two-state framework with a single state.

The issue has followed El-Sayed throughout his Senate campaign. During a July appearance on CNN, anchor Kasie Hunt repeatedly pressed him on whether Israel has a right to exist, but he declined to provide a straightforward answer, instead arguing that the more relevant question was whether Israel was entitled to American taxpayer funding.

At a campaign event organized by Jewish supporters earlier this year, El-Sayed also expressed difficulty with the concept of Israel’s right to exist specifically as a Jewish state, raising questions about how such a state should be defined.

Rogers, a former Republican congressman and FBI agent, offered a sharply different position during his own “60 Minutes” interview.

“I passionately defend Israel’s right to defend itself and to exist as a Jewish state. That sets me at odds with my opponent right off the bat. He refuses to even acknowledge that Israel has the right to exist,” Rogers said.

El-Sayed also used the interview to condemn American military assistance to Israel, arguing that Washington’s support for a two-state solution was inconsistent with providing weapons to an Israeli government he accused of undermining Palestinian statehood.

He maintained that American taxpayers should not be financing weapons for foreign governments, naming Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan among the countries he believes should not receive such assistance.

The Democratic nominee additionally accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, an allegation rejected by the Israeli government. Rogers criticized El-Sayed’s language and defended Israel’s military response to the October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attacks.

The dispute carries particular political significance in Michigan, which has one of the country’s largest Arab-American populations as well as a substantial Jewish electorate. CBS estimated that the state has approximately 100,000 Jewish voters and more than 200,000 Arab Americans, making Middle East policy an unusually prominent issue in the Senate race.

Rogers has argued that El-Sayed’s rhetoric contributes to an increasingly hostile environment for Jewish Americans, pointing to reports of Jewish students at the University of Michigan concealing their Magen Dovid necklaces to avoid harassment.

El-Sayed, however, insisted that disagreements over Israel would not prevent him from defending Jewish Americans.

“Wherever our disagreements are when it comes to Israel, there are a lot more things that we agree on here. When it comes to standing up for Jewish-Americans, I will be right there,” he said.

The interview also revisited El-Sayed’s response to a terrorist attack on a Michigan synagogue and preschool in March. Although he condemned the violence and said attacks on innocent people and houses of worship could never be justified, he subsequently remarked that “Hurt people hurt people,” a comment that drew criticism for appearing to link the attack to grievances against Israel. He later apologized.

The controversy surrounding El-Sayed’s views intensified Sunday when Rep. Haley Stevens, whom he narrowly defeated in the Democratic Senate primary, announced that she was endorsing Rogers rather than her own party’s nominee.

Stevens said she could no longer support El-Sayed following a series of disagreements over Israel, antisemitism, and his campaign’s associations with controversial political figures. Her announcement came after El-Sayed’s campaign reportedly informed her that she was no longer welcome at campaign events.

The unexpected endorsement prompted an angry response from Democratic leaders. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer described Stevens’ decision as a “despicable betrayal,” while President Donald Trump praised her willingness to cross party lines.

Trump has campaigned aggressively for Rogers, repeatedly attacking El-Sayed over his political views and alleging connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. El-Sayed has denied having ties to the organization and has accused Republicans of targeting him because of his Muslim faith.

CBS separately examined the Muslim Brotherhood allegations, reporting that El-Sayed was among 46 Egyptian Americans who signed a 2012 letter addressed to Egypt’s newly elected president, Mohamed Morsi, a senior Muslim Brotherhood figure. The letter urged action against officials associated with Egypt’s previous authoritarian government. El-Sayed has disavowed the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Senate contest is being watched nationally because Democrats are attempting to retain the Michigan seat being vacated by Sen. Gary Peters, while Republicans are seeking their first Senate victory in the state in decades.

El-Sayed, a physician and former public health official who defeated Stevens by fewer than 15,000 votes in the Democratic primary, would become the first Muslim elected to the United States Senate if victorious.

Rogers has sought to frame the election around Michigan’s economic challenges, manufacturing jobs, and public safety, while El-Sayed has campaigned on expanding healthcare access, challenging corporate monopolies, and increasing government oversight of artificial intelligence.

Watch the full CBS “60 Minutes” interview with Abdul El-Sayed and Mike Rogers:

{Matzav.com}

A tremendous simcha is being celebrated throughout the Belzer chassidus following the birth of a baby boy to Rav Shalom Rokeach, the eldest grandson of the Belzer Rebbe, after the family was previously blessed with six daughters, bli ayin hara.

The newborn is a great-grandson of the Belzer Rebbe, a grandson of his son Rav Aharon Mordechai Rokeach, and the first son of Rav Shalom Rokeach.

The joyous news has generated particular excitement among Belzer chassidim because the birth took place on the yahrtzeit of the Mahari”d of Belz, one of the illustrious predecessors in the Belzer dynasty.

Chassidim have noted the significance of the timing, viewing the arrival of a new male descendant in the direct line of the Belzer dynasty on this auspicious day as an extraordinary expression of hashgacha pratis.

The shalom zachor is scheduled to take place this Friday night in Kiryat Belz, with thousands of chassidim expected to participate in the celebration.

{Matzav.com}

Podcast host Joe Rogan unleashed a scathing criticism of political polling over the weekend, arguing that surveys are fundamentally unreliable because most Americans with busy lives have little interest in responding to pollsters. He suggested that the people who do participate are hardly representative of the broader public.

During Saturday’s episode of “The Joe Rogan Experience,” Rogan discussed the shortcomings of opinion surveys with Francis Foster and Konstantin Kisin, the hosts of the “TRIGGERnometry” podcast, as the country approached Tuesday’s closely watched midterm elections.

“Here’s the problem with polls: Most people don’t answer polls,” Rogan said during the conversation.

“Anybody with a life, anybody that has like a family and stuff to do and hobbies they enjoy and friends they want to hang out with, they don’t sit around answering some … poll,” Rogan said.

“So you’re literally getting the opinion of people so …. stupid they answer polls,” he said.

Rogan’s comments came as Republicans worked to defend their congressional majorities, with several national surveys indicating that Democrats could be positioned to capture control of the House of Representatives.

The podcaster, who supported President Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election, raised the issue while examining polling data about religious identification among American voters. The survey indicated that approximately 78% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents identified with a religion, compared with roughly 60% of Democrats.

When Rogan noticed that approximately 1% of those surveyed had declined to respond to a particular question, he jokingly suggested that the nonrespondents were the most intelligent people in the sample.

“That is the most intelligent group on Earth,” he said.

Concerns about the accuracy of political surveys have also been raised by figures across the political spectrum, particularly as unexpected polling results have emerged in several Senate races.

On Friday, MS Now host Joe Scarborough questioned a Washington Post survey showing Democratic candidate Adam Hamilton holding a nine-point advantage over Republican Sen. Roger Marshall in Kansas, expressing doubt about whether the findings accurately reflected the electorate.

“Democrats want to answer pollsters. Republicans don’t. Inconsistencies abound,” Scarborough wrote on X.

President Trump has similarly criticized the polling industry, arguing during a campaign appearance Thursday that numerous surveys were “fake” and pointing to allegations involving Wedgewood, a purported polling organization accused of manufacturing results rather than conducting legitimate surveys.

“They didn’t do polling. They just made up numbers,” Trump said.

Rogan and his guests also discussed the growing difficulty of determining which information circulating online can be trusted, particularly amid the proliferation of fabricated news reports, automated social media accounts, and foreign influence operations.

Kisin warned that the sheer volume of misleading material has made even basic fact-checking increasingly demanding for ordinary Americans.

“You have to really do a lot of research now to even know the basic facts of anything,” Kisin said.

Rogan agreed, describing how he frequently encounters completely invented stories packaged to resemble legitimate breaking news.

Professional polling organizations generally attempt to compensate for low response rates through demographic weighting, statistical adjustments, and other methods designed to make survey samples more representative. Rogan nevertheless questioned whether those techniques can adequately address the fundamental problem of who is willing to answer a poll in the first place.

Additional coverage of the episode noted that Rogan had used an artificial intelligence tool to summarize the Pew Research Center findings before launching into his criticism of polling. The approximately 1% of respondents he praised for declining to answer had actually participated in the survey but skipped one particular question.

Rogan has expressed similar doubts about political polling in the past. During his October 2024 interview with Trump, he questioned whether surveys adequately captured public sentiment, while Trump said he had rarely, if ever, been contacted by a pollster.

Polling analyst Nate Silver has acknowledged that surveys underestimated Trump’s support in the 2016, 2020, and 2024 presidential elections. However, Silver has also maintained that professional pollsters recognize those shortcomings and have been working to improve their methods, particularly when accounting for differences in response rates between Republican and Democratic voters.

{Matzav.com}

Sen. Bernie Sanders sharply criticized Democratic operatives Sunday over reports that they helped recruit a candidate with nearly the same name as Alaska Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan, apparently hoping to confuse voters and weaken the incumbent’s reelection prospects. Sanders called the maneuver “pretty dumb,” although he acknowledged that the tactic did not violate election law.

During an appearance on CBS News’ “Face the Nation,” the Vermont independent was questioned about allegations that Democrats had encouraged Dan J. Sullivan to enter the race against Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, potentially drawing votes away from the incumbent.

“Yeah, frankly what the Democrats did in Alaska seems to be pretty dumb but … it’s not illegal,” Sanders said.

The controversy centers on reports that individuals associated with Democratic Senate candidate Mary Peltola’s campaign helped bring another Sullivan into the contest. The additional candidate, a retired schoolteacher from Petersburg, Alaska, has been nicknamed “Decoy Dan” because of the similarity between his name and that of the Republican senator.

Sanders argued that such political maneuvering is hardly unique to Democrats, pointing to an Ohio Senate contest in which a Republican-aligned super PAC reportedly provided financial support to socialist candidate Greg Levy in an effort to siphon votes from Democrat Sherrod Brown.

“It’s what happens in every election,” Sanders said.

“So why in Ohio is a Republican right-wing super PAC funding a socialist? The answer is obviously obvious. They want to take votes away from Sherrod Brown,” Sanders said. “Is this a good thing to do? No, it is not a good thing to do. It’s a stupid thing to do.”

Despite his criticism of the Alaska strategy, Sanders rejected suggestions that Washington should intervene, maintaining that questions about the conduct of state elections belong to state authorities.

“The federal government does not get involved in state elections,” Sanders said.

The senator also took aim at President Donald Trump, arguing that it was “a little bit absurd” for a president who challenged the results of the 2020 presidential election to position himself as an authority on electoral fairness.

“People of Alaska can make that decision themselves,” Sanders added.

The allegations have also triggered legal action and an investigation in Alaska. State authorities have been examining the circumstances surrounding the second Sullivan’s candidacy, while the Justice Department sought to prevent certification of the Senate election if the Republican incumbent lost amid the ballot controversy.

However, a federal judge dismissed the Justice Department’s lawsuit Sunday, rejecting its attempt to delay certification. Alaska’s Republican-led state government had opposed the federal challenge and urged the court to throw it out.

The election is being conducted under Alaska’s ranked-choice voting system, which allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. Election officials have taken steps to distinguish the two candidates named Dan Sullivan on the ballot, although the controversy has raised concerns about potential voter confusion.

The Republican incumbent, meanwhile, said Sunday that he would accept the outcome of the election even if he were defeated by Peltola, despite the continuing dispute over the second Sullivan’s candidacy.

{Matzav.com}

Agudas Yisroel chairman MK Yitzchok Goldknopf declared Sunday evening that his longtime associate Motty Babchik is no longer representing him, either in political activities or in briefings issued to the media, in a significant development amid growing internal tensions within United Torah Judaism.

The announcement came during a meeting of United Torah Judaism’s senior leadership, where party officials were discussing the need to maintain unity following the recent election results and ahead of anticipated coalition negotiations.

Goldknopf made clear that Babchik, who has long been regarded as one of his closest political aides, is not currently authorized to act or speak on his behalf. He emphasized that statements attributed to Babchik, as well as his political activities, should not be interpreted as reflecting Goldknopf’s positions.

The clarification followed remarks by United Torah Judaism chairman MK Yaakov Asher, who urged the party’s various factions to work together as a unified political force. Asher stressed the importance of cooperation among the different components of the party, particularly as discussions begin over its political direction and potential participation in a governing coalition.

Responding to Asher’s appeal, Goldknopf specifically addressed Babchik’s status, making clear that the political operative does not presently represent him.

MK Meir Porush welcomed the announcement, describing Goldknopf’s clarification as an important step toward restoring cooperation within the party.

“Your clarification is very important. We all want to work as one group and on the basis of agreements,” Porush said.

The exchange comes amid ongoing disagreements within United Torah Judaism following the elections, with senior figures seeking to establish a common approach to the upcoming coalition negotiations.

Goldknopf’s public distancing from Babchik is particularly noteworthy given the latter’s longstanding involvement in his political affairs and his prominent role in the party’s internal dealings.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump launched a sharp attack Sunday against Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, accusing him of being a “jihadist” with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood while applauding Democratic Congresswoman Haley Stevens for crossing party lines to endorse Republican Mike Rogers in Tuesday’s closely contested Senate race.

Speaking with reporters on the airport tarmac in Dubuque, Iowa, Trump praised Stevens for publicly backing Rogers, describing her decision as an act of political courage that could potentially expose her to threats.

“They’re jihadists. He’s jihadist. He’s a Muslim Brotherhood guy,” Trump said of El-Sayed.

“Yeah, I’d say she’s in danger. She was very brave doing it. And she did it for the people of Michigan. I have great respect for her,” the president added.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, who accompanied Trump during the exchange, said he had personally contacted Stevens following her announcement to express his appreciation for her decision to support the Republican nominee.

“I … told her how courageous she was and how much we appreciate what she did,” Johnson said. “She’s standing for truth; Haley’s a good person. This is her state; she served it as best she could.”

Johnson portrayed the election as a contest between two fundamentally different political approaches, arguing that the outcome would have significant consequences beyond Michigan.

“It’s a contrast election between common sense and crazy,” the speaker said.

“Haley did a heroic and important thing for the country. I told her to stay safe.”

Trump went further, warning that an El-Sayed victory could strengthen what he described as Muslim Brotherhood influence within the Democratic Party. He argued that even a handful of senators could exert considerable leverage over party leadership when their votes are needed to secure a majority.

“We have to get the Senate. We can’t allow the Muslim Brotherhood — don’t forget, when they have one or two or three votes, they basically assume control of the party,” Trump said.

“The party has to go along with them. They can blackmail the party and extort the party.”

The comments came during the final stretch of campaigning before Tuesday’s midterm elections, with Republicans seeking to preserve their Senate majority and Michigan emerging as one of the races attracting intense national attention.

Stevens’ decision to support Rogers represented an unusual public rejection of her own party’s nominee. Her endorsement provided the Republican candidate with a prominent Democratic supporter just days before voters were scheduled to head to the polls.

El-Sayed, who previously served as a public health official in Detroit, is running for the Senate seat being vacated by Democratic Senator Gary Peters.

Trump has made allegations about El-Sayed’s supposed connections to the Muslim Brotherhood a recurring theme of his campaign appearances. During an October 25 rally in Port Huron, Michigan, the president warned that electing El-Sayed could allow him access to classified national security information.

El-Sayed has rejected the accusations and denied having any affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood.

The dispute between Stevens and El-Sayed intensified over an advertisement produced by an outside progressive group that connected American military assistance to Israel with rising living costs in Michigan. Jewish community leaders criticized the advertisement for invoking antisemitic themes, and Stevens demanded that El-Sayed condemn it. El-Sayed said his campaign had no involvement in producing the advertisement and rejected its contents.

Stevens, who narrowly lost the Democratic Senate primary to El-Sayed in August, had previously promised to support him in the general election. Her reversal followed additional disagreements over El-Sayed’s association with controversial political commentator Hasan Piker and came after Stevens was excluded from a planned joint campaign appearance.

The congresswoman appeared alongside Rogers at a Detroit church service Sunday before announcing her endorsement. The decision triggered an immediate backlash from Democratic leaders, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and prompted the resignation of Stevens’ longtime chief of staff.

El-Sayed sought to minimize the controversy, telling reporters that his attention remained on Michigan voters and issues such as grocery prices, energy costs and economic conditions rather than the political dispute with Stevens.

The race has become particularly consequential because the winner will succeed retiring Democratic Senator Gary Peters, and the outcome could play a significant role in determining which party controls the Senate after Tuesday’s election.

{Matzav.com}

A right-wing demonstration outside the Herzliya residence of Yashar Party chairman Gadi Eisenkot turned ugly Sunday evening when protesters shouted accusations of treason and one demonstrator accused the former IDF chief of responsibility for the death of his son, who was killed fighting Hamas in Gaza.

Several dozen activists assembled near Eisenkot’s home to oppose the possibility of his forming a government dependent on the backing of Arab political parties. The protest came amid negotiations following Israel’s elections for the 26th Knesset, with Eisenkot emerging as a potential candidate to lead the next coalition.

Demonstrators carried placards condemning cooperation with Arab factions, including signs declaring “No leftist government with terrorists,” and “Treasonous leftists endanger Jews.”

The demonstration escalated when one participant directed particularly vicious remarks at Eisenkot’s wife, invoking the death of their son, Master Sergeant (Res.) Gal Eisenkot, who fell in combat in Gaza.

“Your husband is a traitor. He sold your son; he murdered your son. He murdered us and you, and his nephew. Traitor!” the protester shouted at Eisenkot’s wife. Other protesters joined in, chanting “traitor.”

The incident was captured on video, showing the demonstrator directing the accusations toward Eisenkot’s family as other participants continued shouting.

Gal Eisenkot was killed in December 2023 while serving in the Gaza Strip during Israel’s war against Hamas. His death drew widespread attention across Israel, particularly because his father, a former IDF chief of staff, was serving in the country’s emergency wartime government at the time.

The protest centered on the possibility that Eisenkot could seek to establish a governing majority with the parliamentary support of Arab parties. Right-wing activists have strongly opposed such an arrangement, arguing that parties they regard as anti-Zionist should have no role in determining Israel’s next government.

The confrontation followed several days of demonstrations outside Eisenkot’s residence, although earlier gatherings had pressed him to cooperate with Arab parties rather than oppose such an arrangement. On Thursday, approximately 200 demonstrators gathered there to demand a government supported by Jewish and Arab parties.

The election results have left Israel facing a difficult coalition battle. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s bloc secured 53 seats in the 120-member Knesset, while Eisenkot’s four-party alliance won 48. Arab parties captured a combined 19 seats, potentially giving Netanyahu’s opponents the parliamentary numbers needed to establish an alternative government.

However, Eisenkot had ruled out governing with Arab parties during the election campaign, and disagreements among the opposition factions have complicated efforts to assemble a majority. President Isaac Herzog is expected to consult with the newly elected parties before deciding which candidate should receive the mandate to form the next government.

{Matzav.com}

The BBC has acknowledged that it failed to conduct adequate background checks before featuring a guest who had previously posted inflammatory statements about Jews and appeared to celebrate Hamas’s October 7, 2023, massacre in Israel. The British broadcaster conceded that its screening procedures fell short of its own standards and said it would implement changes following the controversy.

Bushra Shaikh, a former contestant on the British reality television series The Apprentice, appeared on BBC One’s “Sunday Morning Live” last month to discuss whether women should be permitted to wear burkas in public. Her appearance subsequently drew criticism after attention turned to her history of social media comments concerning Jews, Israel, and the Hamas attacks.

According to The Telegraph, Shaikh had previously described Jews who moved to Israel from European countries as “lying scumbags” and “the biggest charlatans on this planet.”

On October 7, 2023, just hours after Hamas terrorists launched their deadly assault on southern Israel, Shaikh posted a message appearing to applaud the attack.

“Palestinians have done more in 5 minutes than Zelensky has done with 75bn. Humiliation is an understatement.”

Shaikh also attracted criticism for comments following the October 2025 terrorist attack at a Manchester synagogue, where two people were murdered and three others suffered serious injuries. Rather than placing responsibility on the perpetrators, she directed blame toward Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

“He has Jewish blood on his hands,” she wrote on X.

In another controversial post in January, Shaikh responded to early reports about the number of Iranian demonstrators killed during the regime’s crackdown by invoking the Holocaust.

“The real number is 6 million.”

The Telegraph reported that the BBC subsequently admitted in correspondence with a member of Parliament that its staff had failed to properly examine Shaikh’s social media activity before inviting her onto the program. The broadcaster acknowledged that the vetting process had not met “the standards we expect” and indicated that corrective measures would follow.

Shaikh rejected allegations that her previous remarks were antisemitic.

The incident comes amid continuing scrutiny of the BBC’s coverage of Israel, Hamas, and antisemitism, with critics repeatedly questioning the broadcaster’s editorial decisions and its handling of sensitive issues involving the Jewish community.

In November 2023, the BBC issued an apology after broadcasting an inaccurate report suggesting that Israeli troops were targeting medical personnel during operations near Gaza’s Shifa Hospital.

The network also faced criticism over its reporting on an explosion at a Gaza hospital in October 2023. Initial coverage suggested Israeli responsibility before the IDF presented evidence that the blast had resulted from a failed rocket launched by Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The BBC later acknowledged that “it was false to speculate” about the cause before the facts had been established.

Another major controversy erupted in 2025 over the BBC documentary “Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone,” after it emerged that the young narrator was the son of a senior Hamas official, a connection that had not been properly disclosed during production.

The broadcaster subsequently acknowledged “serious flaws” in its handling of the documentary.

Separately, The Telegraph reported last week that the BBC had agreed to pay £400,000 to an award-winning Jewish documentary filmmaker who alleged that she had experienced antisemitic harassment from colleagues and had been pushed out of the organization following the October 7 massacre.

The controversy prompted Labour MP David Taylor to write to BBC director general Matt Brittin, demanding an explanation of the checks conducted before Shaikh’s appearance. Daisy Scalchi, the BBC’s head of religion and ethics for television, responded that the program’s senior production team had been unaware of the offensive posts and that the independent company responsible for producing the show had been asked to investigate the failure.

Shaikh’s public activities had previously attracted attention beyond her comments about Israel. An investigation published in May found that she had participated in two press tours of Iran organized by the Iranian state broadcaster, during which she met senior Iranian officials and published favorable commentary about the regime.

The BBC also faced fresh criticism after Radio 4 interviewed Swedish academic Andreas Malm on October 30. Malm had previously characterized the October 7 Hamas attack as a liberation struggle, prompting additional questions about the broadcaster’s decisions concerning controversial guests.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump warned Sunday that the United States is prepared to unleash another devastating military strike against Iran if the ongoing conflict is not brought to a swift conclusion, declaring that his desire to prevent additional casualties is the principal reason Washington has not already taken more aggressive action.

Speaking at a campaign rally in Iowa ahead of Tuesday’s midterm elections, Trump suggested that American forces have the capability to deliver a decisive blow but that he is deliberately exercising restraint.

“The only reason we are not finished with Iran is because I want to be nice. I want to try and save all those lives if I can. But at some point, we’re going to have to give them the hammer.”

Trump predicted that the fighting would end in the near future, although he stopped short of identifying a deadline or outlining the precise conditions that would bring hostilities to a close.

“It’s going to be over very soon. Very soon,” he said.

The president also addressed mounting concerns about energy costs, arguing that higher oil prices represent a relatively modest economic burden compared with the importance of protecting American interests and international security.

He said he had initially expected the conflict to produce a much sharper rise in energy prices and expressed confidence that oil prices would fall dramatically once the war ended.

“When that war is over, it’s going to come plunging,” Trump said. “It’s a very small price to pay for the security of this country and for the world.”

Trump again maintained that the American military offensive had succeeded in preventing Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons, portraying the operation as a major achievement for U.S. national security.

Earlier Sunday, in an interview with RSBN before appearing at the Iowa rally, Trump indicated that the administration was prepared to resolve the confrontation through negotiations or further military operations.

“We’ve had such a victory and we’ll put it away very soon, one way or the other. Either they’ll make a deal or we’ll just end it, end it the, I guess you could say, maybe the easy way,” he said.

The comments followed remarks Saturday night in which Trump offered a cautiously positive assessment of negotiations with Iran, describing the discussions as “going fine” while emphasizing that he was not “in much of a hurry” to finalize an agreement.

Nevertheless, Trump expressed skepticism about whether Iranian officials would honor any commitments they made, saying they “are not very reliable. … They make a deal, and then they back out.”

The president also raised the possibility of striking additional Iranian nuclear infrastructure, specifically mentioning Pickaxe Mountain, a suspected underground nuclear facility.

“We can do that in 10 minutes. We have that planned. You can look at Pickaxe Mountain. We need to take care of that. We can do that very quickly,” he warned.

Meanwhile, diplomatic contacts between the United States and Iran have continued through Qatari intermediaries, with negotiators exploring possible arrangements involving Tehran’s nuclear activities, shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, and potential economic concessions.

Reports Saturday suggested that the sides had reached preliminary understandings on several issues, although no final agreement had been announced. An American delegation was reportedly preparing to travel to Doha for additional discussions with Iranian representatives.

Additional reporting indicates that Trump discussed the Iran situation with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu during a telephone conversation Saturday, with the two leaders reportedly differing over how quickly Washington should resume military operations.

According to a report citing American and Israeli officials, Netanyahu urged Trump to authorize additional strikes immediately after Tuesday’s midterm elections, while Trump preferred to allow the ongoing diplomatic negotiations more time. One Israeli official characterized the conversation as “tough,” while an American official described it as “direct.”

Iranian representatives and Qatari mediators held a third consecutive day of negotiations in Doha on Sunday. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said discussions were continuing over a proposal that could reopen the Strait of Hormuz within two days of an agreement, but acknowledged that no final deal had been reached.

Tehran has simultaneously warned against renewed American attacks, with Iranian military officials threatening a broader confrontation if the United States resumes strikes. Iran’s leadership has also ordered its armed forces to prepare for the possibility of additional military action.

{Matzav.com}

LISTEN:

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

LISTEN:

A newly married chosson whose arrest by Israeli military police triggered widespread protests in Yerushalayim and Beit Shemesh has been released from military prison following intervention by senior officials and political leaders.

Yaari Lieberman, a talmid at Yeshivas Ohr Hachaim headed by Rav Reuven Elbaz, was freed from Military Prison 10 early Monday morning after initially receiving a 20-day prison sentence for failing to report for military service.

His release followed a conversation between a senior official and the head of the IDF Personnel Directorate, during which the unusual circumstances surrounding the arrest were explained. Attorney Shlomo Hadad also worked to secure Lieberman’s freedom, ultimately arranging for him to sign an undertaking to appear before military authorities on a future date to be determined.

The agreement resulted in a reduction of his punishment and his immediate release, allowing him to return home to his new wife. His family appealed to members of the public to respect their wishes and refrain from gathering outside the military prison.

The controversy erupted Sunday when Lieberman, who had married just last week, was traveling with his wife to a sheva brachos celebration. According to eyewitnesses, military police officers dressed in civilian clothing approached him immediately after he stepped off a bus and placed him under arrest.

Witnesses said the officers were not displaying identification badges, leaving Lieberman’s wife unaware of who was taking her husband away. In the confusion, the newlywed bride initially feared that her husband was being kidnapped.

Lieberman was subsequently transferred to military custody and sentenced to 20 days of imprisonment, prompting an immediate outcry throughout the chareidi community.

As news of the arrest spread, demonstrators took to the streets of Yerushalayim and Beit Shemesh, where protests continued into the night and escalated into confrontations with police.

Video footage circulated from the demonstrations appeared to show police officers deploying stun grenades against protesters, with some recordings reportedly showing the devices being thrown directly toward groups of demonstrators.

The arrest also generated an intense political response, with lawmakers from several parties becoming involved in efforts to secure the young man’s release.

Shas faction chairman MK Yinon Azulai initiated a petition demanding Lieberman’s freedom and gathered signatures from Knesset members across party lines, including representatives of Likud.

United Torah Judaism lawmakers also joined the effort, calling on Defense Minister Yisrael Katz to intervene immediately and arrange for the newlywed’s return to his family.

{Matzav.com}

A new halachic ruling concerning children’s dolls and decorative figurines has sparked discussion among rabbonim and families, after Rav Chaim Aharon Bleier, a prominent posek in the Minchas Yitzchok neighborhood of Yerushalayim, warned that certain human-shaped dolls may be prohibited under the halachos governing the creation and possession of human images.

In an article published in his weekly halachic publication, Chukei Chaim, Rav Bleier examined the longstanding prohibition against creating a complete three-dimensional representation of a human being, explaining that the issue extends beyond statues and decorative sculptures to include ordinary children’s toys.

Rav Bleier has devoted his recent publications to several halachic questions associated with the prohibition of avodah zarah, including the printing of images of the sun and other representations addressed by the poskim. His latest discussion focused specifically on the prohibition of fashioning human forms and the circumstances under which such objects may be kept in a Jewish home.

Citing the Shulchan Aruch and other halachic authorities, Rav Bleier explained that producing a complete human figure can violate the prohibition against making certain images, even when the object is not intended for worship.

He further noted that the prohibition cannot necessarily be avoided by having a non-Jew manufacture the object on behalf of a Jew. According to the ruling, commissioning such an item may itself present a halachic problem, and additional restrictions can apply to keeping the completed figure in one’s possession.

Addressing the common practice of purchasing dolls for children, Rav Bleier distinguished between toys that are routinely handled and discarded on the floor and ornamental figures that are carefully preserved and prominently displayed.

He wrote that a children’s doll made in the complete form of a human being is, in principle, subject to the halachic prohibition. Nevertheless, he cited authorities who permit retaining such dolls when they are used in a manner considered degrading or undignified, rather than treated as objects of importance.

For example, dolls that children regularly throw on the floor, leave scattered around the house and handle without special care may fall within this leniency, according to the opinions he cited.

Rav Bleier emphasized, however, that this allowance does not necessarily apply to every doll, and that the manner in which an item is used and displayed is an important consideration.

A more stringent ruling applies to decorative silver figurines depicting complete human beings, particularly those placed in display cabinets or vitrines as household ornaments.

Because such figures are maintained in a place of honor and are not treated casually or disrespectfully, Rav Bleier ruled that they may not be kept in the home, even if they were originally manufactured by a non-Jew.

The distinction means that an ordinary child’s doll and a silver human figurine may be subject to different practical rulings, despite both depicting the human form.

Rav Bleier also addressed the circumstances under which the objects were manufactured, explaining that a separate halachic concern arises when a Jew produces a prohibited figure or specifically commissions a non-Jew to make one.

In such cases, he wrote, the initial production of the object may have involved a prohibition, raising an additional question about purchasing it.

According to his ruling, even if the finished doll will subsequently be used by children in a manner that would ordinarily qualify for the leniency concerning degrading treatment, purchasing an item produced through a prohibited act may raise concerns involving the prohibition of lifnei iver, which forbids facilitating another person’s transgression.

The posek therefore cautioned against assuming that the permissibility of keeping a doll already in the home automatically means that purchasing a newly manufactured doll is permitted under all circumstances.

For parents who have already purchased human-shaped dolls for their children, Rav Bleier offered a more lenient practical approach.

He ruled that, after the fact, families may rely on the opinions permitting the possession of dolls that are used in an undignified manner, particularly where removing the toys would create difficulty.

At the same time, he recommended a straightforward solution for those wishing to avoid the halachic concern entirely: removing or altering a portion of the doll’s face so that the human form is no longer complete.

Such a modification, he explained, can eliminate the issue associated with possessing a complete human figure.

The recommendation provides an alternative for parents who wish to retain their children’s toys while adhering to the more stringent halachic approach.

Rav Bleier also called on toy manufacturers to take the issue into consideration during the design and production process, suggesting that dolls should be manufactured in a form that is permissible from the outset.

He urged manufacturers to consult qualified rabbonim and obtain appropriate halachic guidance before producing such items, thereby preventing consumers from encountering questions about whether the toys may be purchased or kept in their homes.

{Matzav.com}