Feed aggregator

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has accused Israel’s chareidi political representatives of preventing the dismissal of Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara at the beginning of the government’s term, claiming that their refusal helped create the legal and political situation now confronting the chareidi community. In a wide-ranging interview with Bechadrei Chareidim, Ben-Gvir also criticized the arrests of yeshiva bochurim, defended his visits to Har Habayis, expressed concern that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu may form a unity government without him, and revealed that he intends to demand the Defense Ministry in post-election coalition negotiations.

Ben-Gvir claimed that chareidi lawmakers had opposed his efforts to remove Baharav-Miara because they believed maintaining a working relationship with her would help them secure government appointments. He argued that the same attorney general is now pursuing policies harmful to the chareidi community, particularly regarding military conscription.

The Otzma Yehudit chairman also revealed that he wants Likud MK Tally Gotliv appointed justice minister in the next government, saying he considers changes to Israel’s judicial system and security policies essential conditions for joining a future coalition.

Addressing criticism from chareidi politicians who have attacked him during the election campaign, Ben-Gvir insisted that he had consistently assisted their community throughout his time in office.

He said chareidi Knesset members had regularly contacted him whenever they encountered difficulties and that his office had made itself available to them at all hours.

Ben-Gvir recalled that Shas chairman Aryeh Deri had repeatedly described him as a genuine friend of the chareidi community, making the current criticism particularly surprising to him.

He suggested that the change in tone was connected to the approaching elections and accused chareidi politicians of attempting to distance themselves from him for political reasons.

According to Ben-Gvir, their refusal to support the attorney general’s removal early in the government’s term was a serious miscalculation whose consequences are now becoming apparent.

The minister returned to that allegation several times during the interview, portraying Baharav-Miara as the central obstacle to policies sought by both his party and the chareidi factions.

Ben-Gvir said he had advocated her dismissal from the outset but encountered opposition from chareidi representatives who believed they could negotiate effectively with her.

He claimed that some had told him, “We know how to get along with her; we can do deals with her,” using an expression suggesting that they believed they could maneuver around potential obstacles.

Ben-Gvir maintained that he refused to abandon his position despite the political consequences and said those now criticizing him should remember who supported removing the attorney general and who opposed it.

His accusations come amid continuing tensions between the government, the attorney general, and chareidi parties over the enforcement of military conscription requirements for yeshiva students.

Asked about the arrests of yeshiva bochurim and the role of the police under his authority, Ben-Gvir insisted that responsibility for the detentions rests with the military police rather than the Israel Police.

He said the military police were carrying out arrests under the direction of the attorney general and that the national security minister has no authority over those operations.

Ben-Gvir argued that arresting yeshiva students would undermine rather than encourage chareidi enlistment.

He further alleged that Baharav-Miara was pursuing the arrests for political reasons, specifically to damage Israel’s right-wing government.

The minister again criticized chareidi lawmakers for failing to support his earlier attempt to dismiss her, saying their decision had allowed the present situation to develop.

His remarks placed responsibility for the enforcement controversy on the attorney general and the chareidi parties rather than on his own ministry.

The question of responsibility remains contested, however, as military enforcement, government policy, judicial rulings, and the attorney general’s legal positions all play roles in the ongoing conscription dispute.

Ben-Gvir also discussed his efforts to encourage chareidi participation in the Israel Police and Border Police, arguing that these institutions can accommodate religious recruits without requiring them to abandon their way of life.

He said his ministry had developed specialized frameworks with adjustments to training, service conditions, and other requirements intended to make police service more accessible to chareidi men.

According to Ben-Gvir, increasing the number of chareidi officers could also improve relations between the police and chareidi communities, particularly following confrontations during demonstrations over military conscription.

In a separate interview earlier this month, Ben-Gvir claimed that the number of chareidim serving in the Israel Police had increased from several dozen when he entered office to more than 1,000. He also said hundreds of chareidim were now serving in the Israel Prison Service.

The minister has additionally cited his efforts to restrict the use of police crowd-control measures at chareidi demonstrations, including the controversial skunk-water spraying system.

Ben-Gvir has argued that the attorney general’s attempt to remove him from office is connected in part to his demands that police treat chareidi demonstrators according to the same enforcement standards applied to other protesters.

In March, Baharav-Miara asked the Supreme Court to order Netanyahu to dismiss Ben-Gvir, arguing that his involvement in police operations and appointments threatened the independence of law enforcement. Netanyahu rejected the demand, maintaining that the minister had been lawfully appointed and that there was no legal basis for his removal.

Ben-Gvir has portrayed the legal proceedings as an attempt to prevent him from implementing his policies, including those he says are intended to protect chareidi rights.

The interview also addressed criticism from former Sephardic Chief Rabbi Rav Yitzchak Yosef, who recently condemned visits to Har Habayis and criticized political support for Ben-Gvir.

Ben-Gvir responded that he respects Rav Yitzchak Yosef and other leading Torah scholars and does not wish to engage in public disputes with rabbonim.

He said his own conduct is guided by rabbinic authorities, including Rav Dov Lior and Rav Shmuel Eliyahu, who hold different halachic positions regarding visits to Har Habayis.

Ben-Gvir acknowledged that legitimate halachic disagreements exist but maintained that he follows the rulings of the rabbonim upon whom he relies.

His criticism, he explained, is directed at politicians who turn halachic disagreements into instruments of political confrontation.

The question of ascending Har Habayis remains a significant point of disagreement between Ben-Gvir and much of the chareidi rabbinic leadership, which maintains the longstanding prohibition against entering the site because of concerns involving ritual purity and the sanctity of areas where entry is forbidden.

Turning to the approaching elections, Ben-Gvir addressed chareidi voters who are disappointed with their political representatives and considering abstaining.

He said he respects those who follow the voting instructions of their rabbonim and would not interfere with such decisions.

At the same time, he urged dissatisfied voters not to remain home or support parties that fail to cross the electoral threshold, arguing that doing so would weaken the political camp opposed to the attorney general.

Ben-Gvir openly appealed to chareidi voters who are reconsidering their political affiliations to support Otzma Yehudit.

The minister also expressed concern that Netanyahu might abandon his existing coalition partners after the elections and instead establish a unity government with former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot.

He said comments from individuals close to the prime minister had increased his concern about the possibility.

According to Ben-Gvir, Netanyahu has indicated that he would not retain him as national security minister, while Likud officials have publicly discussed forming a unity government.

Ben-Gvir further claimed that messages had been conveyed from the Prime Minister’s Office to foreign governments indicating that he would not be included in the next coalition.

Those assertions were presented by Ben-Gvir as his understanding of discussions surrounding the next government.

He suggested that Netanyahu might prefer a coalition with fewer internal disagreements, particularly because Ben-Gvir has repeatedly challenged the prime minister over security policy and judicial reform.

The Otzma Yehudit leader said he is unwilling to abandon his positions merely to preserve coalition stability.

He maintained that a government’s success should be measured by the policies it implements rather than the absence of disputes among its ministers.

Ben-Gvir’s concerns about a potential Netanyahu-Eisenkot arrangement come as coalition possibilities have become a major issue in the closing stages of the election campaign.

The minister has repeatedly warned that a broad unity government could prevent the policy changes he considers necessary in the judicial and security establishments.

Asked what he would demand in negotiations following the elections, Ben-Gvir made clear that he intends to seek a more powerful position than the National Security Ministry.

He said he wants to become defense minister, a position that would place him in charge of Israel’s military establishment and allow him to pursue major changes in national security policy.

He also revealed that he wants Likud MK Tally Gotliv appointed justice minister, arguing that she would advance substantial reforms within Israel’s judicial system.

Ben-Gvir stressed that participation in any future government would depend on detailed policy commitments and assurances that those agreements could actually be implemented.

Apple’s long-awaited entry into the foldable smartphone market is generating considerable excitement, with reviewers praising the iPhone Duo’s innovative design and impressive display. But the company’s most expensive iPhone is already facing questions about its durability after several early buyers reported cracked screens, including one customer who said the device broke just six hours after purchase.

The $1,999 iPhone Duo officially arrived in stores Friday, marking Apple’s first attempt to compete in a category that Samsung and other manufacturers have been developing for years. Although technology critics have largely applauded Apple’s engineering, they have also identified significant drawbacks involving the phone’s weight, camera performance, software compatibility, and limited multitasking capabilities.

The early reviews reflect a mixture of enthusiasm and reservations. Engadget awarded the Duo an 8.8 out of 10, while The Verge and WIRED each gave the device a 7 out of 10.

Engadget described Apple’s first foldable as “worth the wait,” while The Verge called the experience a “messy, expensive, good time.”

WIRED offered similarly favorable impressions of the hardware, characterizing the Duo as an “astonishingly good first foldable.”

Much of the praise has focused on the device’s folding mechanism and its expansive 7.6-inch interior display, which opens to provide a tablet-like viewing experience.

Apple developed a hinge designed to operate smoothly while allowing the screen to remain open at various angles. Reviewers also highlighted the titanium construction and the company’s efforts to minimize the visible crease that has been a longstanding drawback of foldable smartphones.

The inner display features a matte, anti-reflective finish intended to reduce glare, making the larger screen easier to use under different lighting conditions.

However, the launch was quickly overshadowed by complaints from several customers who reported damage to their new phones.

One Reddit user claimed the device developed a crack along the folding mechanism after only a few hours of use.

“iPhone Duo screen cracked within 6 hours of ownership,” the customer wrote.

According to the account, the problem occurred while the owner was opening the phone to demonstrate it to a friend.

The customer reported having “felt something around the internal hinge, underneath the screen.”

“As I continued opening it, I heard an audible crack, and the screen broke right along the hinge,” the post continued. “There were no marks or damage on the inner screen’s surface or the external hinge to suggest anything had been caught or damaged.”

The owner subsequently returned to an Apple store, where employees reportedly replaced the damaged phone with a new Duo.

Other users shared photographs and video footage showing similar damage near the folding area.

“Looks like some of them are cracking in the exact same area,” one Reddit commenter observed.

Another person posted an image of a damaged handset with the caption, “I’ve seen several iPhone Duos with damage in this exact same spot.”

The complaints have raised questions about whether the failures involve isolated defective units or a more widespread issue affecting the new folding mechanism.

The number of reported incidents remains small relative to the device’s overall launch, and there is not yet sufficient evidence to determine whether the Duo has a systemic durability problem.

Nevertheless, the reports are likely to attract attention because of the phone’s unusually high price and the additional mechanical complexity involved in a folding display.

For a device costing nearly $2,000, customers may be particularly concerned about the possibility of damage occurring during ordinary opening and closing.

The concerns come despite the generally favorable reception of Apple’s hinge engineering.

Reviewers found that the folding mechanism feels sturdy and operates with impressive precision. The interior screen also reduces the prominence of the central crease compared with many earlier foldable devices.

The crease has not been eliminated completely, however. Several reviewers observed that it remains visible under certain lighting conditions and can still be detected when sliding a finger across the display.

The anti-reflective screen coating also involves compromises.

Although it substantially reduces reflections, some critics found that colors appear less vivid and dark images lack the deep black tones associated with Apple’s premium conventional iPhones.

Another frequently mentioned drawback is the Duo’s size and weight.

The device weighs 254 grams and measures 11.3 millimeters thick when folded, making it noticeably bulkier than a standard premium smartphone.

While the interior screen provides considerable space for reading, viewing photographs, and watching videos, the exterior display measures only 5.4 inches.

Some reviewers appreciated the smaller outer screen because it makes the folded device relatively compact. Others found it restrictive, particularly when browsing websites, typing messages, or using applications designed for larger smartphone displays.

The Wall Street Journal delivered one of the more critical assessments of Apple’s new product, describing it as “Too Much iPhone, Too Little iPad.”

The newspaper argued that the Duo’s larger display does not necessarily translate into the productivity advantages users might expect from a tablet.

Although the phone opens into a substantially larger screen, its software does not provide the same flexibility available on Apple’s iPad.

Multitasking, keyboard functionality, and application management remain more limited, reducing the usefulness of the expanded display for certain types of work.

Software compatibility has emerged as another significant weakness.

Apple’s own applications generally transition smoothly between the smaller exterior screen and the larger interior display, but many third-party developers have not yet fully adapted their software to the new format.

As a result, some applications continue to appear in narrow, smartphone-sized windows even when the Duo is completely unfolded.

WIRED reviewer Julian Chokkattu described the resulting display as having “Thick, black bars on the sides, with a phone-sized app in the middle of this tablet-like display.”

Engadget reviewer Sam Rutherford identified the inconsistency between compatible and incompatible applications as “the biggest growing pain you’ll face on Apple’s first foldable.”

The limitations extend beyond applications that have not yet been redesigned.

Even Apple’s own multitasking system imposes restrictions that reviewers found frustrating.

Users can operate two applications simultaneously on the larger screen, but the software requires each to occupy exactly half the available space.

Unlike certain Android foldable phones, the Duo does not permit users to adjust the relative size of the two windows.

Nor can users open a third floating application above the split-screen arrangement, despite Apple having offered similar functionality on iPads for years.

“If you have two apps split-screen on the Duo, Apple won’t let you resize one app to be slightly bigger than the other like you can on Android,” Chokkattu wrote in WIRED.

“Here, a 50-50 split is always enforced. You can’t add a floating third app when in split-screen either, even though Apple has offered a similar capability on iPads for years.”

These restrictions could prove disappointing for customers who view the foldable design as a way to combine the convenience of a smartphone with the productivity features of a tablet.

Some of the software shortcomings may improve as developers update their applications.

WIRED reported that several widely used apps received compatibility improvements during the review period.

Creative Strategies also observed a substantial increase in the proportion of its installed applications optimized for the Duo over approximately six days, suggesting that software support is developing quickly.

Unlike hardware limitations, application compatibility and multitasking features can potentially be improved through future updates.

Other limitations, however, are built into the device itself, including a camera system that does not match the capabilities of Apple’s highest-end conventional iPhones.

Despite being the most expensive iPhone Apple has ever released, the Duo does not include the company’s most advanced photographic hardware.

“Despite being Apple’s most expensive iPhone, the iPhone Duo does not have its most powerful camera system,” Chance Miller of 9to5Mac observed.

The phone’s primary and ultrawide cameras generally received positive reviews, but several critics found that they could not match the iPhone 18 Pro’s performance, particularly when taking photographs in poorly lit environments.

The Duo also includes a concealed 4-megapixel camera beneath its larger interior display, a feature intended to preserve an uninterrupted viewing area.

However, reviewers found that the under-display camera produced noticeably weaker photographs, including images with washed-out colors and reduced clarity.

Gizmodo reviewer Raymond Wong questioned the decision to omit Apple’s most versatile camera hardware from such an expensive product.

“I hear you: it feels absurd that a $2,000 phone—the most expensive iPhone ever—does not have the most versatile camera system that Apple has to offer,” Wong wrote.

He also reported that he “noticed more lens flares coming off streetlights and more smeared details.”

The folding design does offer some photographic advantages unavailable on a conventional iPhone.

Users can take selfies using the higher-quality rear cameras while previewing the photograph on the smaller exterior screen, potentially producing better results than the dedicated front-facing cameras.

The device can also be positioned at different angles without a separate stand, allowing users to capture photographs or videos more easily in certain situations.

Battery performance was another area in which the Duo exceeded some reviewers’ expectations.

Although its large interior display requires considerable power, the phone managed to deliver respectable battery life during testing.

Tom’s Guide recorded 13 hours and 20 minutes of operation during a continuous web-browsing test conducted over a 5G connection while using the larger screen.

That result exceeded the 10 hours and six minutes achieved by Samsung’s Galaxy Z Fold 8 under the same testing conditions.

However, the Duo remained well behind Apple’s iPhone 18 Pro Max, which lasted 17 hours and 31 minutes.

Other reviewers reported that the new foldable could comfortably last through a normal day of use, although prolonged activity on the larger display reduced battery life more quickly.

Apple has equipped the Duo with its A20 Pro processor, a redesigned cooling system incorporating a vapor chamber, and a dual-battery arrangement intended to support the demands of the foldable design.

The device runs iOS 27, which Apple modified to accommodate transitions between the smaller outer screen and the larger internal display.

Apple officially introduced the Duo on September 9, describing it as a major development in the iPhone’s evolution. Preorders opened October 16, followed by the October 23 retail launch.

The handset is available in two colors, star white and night sky, and features a polished titanium exterior.

Apple has emphasized that the Duo’s compact folded dimensions and expansive interior screen are intended to provide users with both smartphone convenience and tablet-style functionality.

The company has also promoted the durability of the precision hinge, making the early reports of broken displays particularly noteworthy.

Additional accounts emerging since Friday’s launch have raised further questions about the device’s reliability.

One customer in Dallas reported that the interior screen cracked before the initial setup process had been completed. According to the customer’s account, the hinge became unusually difficult to move after approximately four openings, followed by a loud popping sound.

The customer said an Apple Store replaced the phone without charge.

Other reports have described discoloration, dark lines, and bright bands of malfunctioning pixels near the folding area.

Photographs circulating online show some affected screens developing a distinctive pattern, with damage extending along the crease and across part of the interior display.

Reports have emerged from the United States, Australia, and China, although the circumstances surrounding some of the photographs remain unverified.

Independent durability testing has also raised concerns.

In a video published by the JerryRigEverything YouTube channel, technology reviewer Zack Nelson subjected the Duo to a series of demanding tests involving scratches, dirt, repeated folding, and bending.

The exterior screen demonstrated substantial scratch resistance, but the flexible interior display proved much easier to mark, a weakness common to foldable smartphones.

During testing, dirt and sand interfered with the hinge mechanism, eventually preventing the phone from closing completely.

A separate bending test damaged the internal display and produced visible screen defects.

Those tests involved conditions considerably more extreme than ordinary daily use, however, and do not establish that the phone will fail under normal circumstances.

Some technology publications have also cautioned against drawing sweeping conclusions from the relatively small number of complaints appearing online.

AppleInsider reported contacting employees at seven Apple stores, including four major locations, and found that none of the stores surveyed had received a Duo for service or return because of a broken display.

That account suggests the early complaints may not reflect a widespread problem, although the device has been available for only a short period.

The distinction is important because isolated manufacturing defects can occur during the launch of virtually any electronic product, particularly one introducing an entirely new mechanical design.

Apple has not publicly identified a common cause behind the reported screen failures.

For affected customers, the company’s standard warranty and return policies may provide protection, depending on the circumstances of the damage.

Some early buyers have already reported receiving immediate replacements at Apple retail locations, although individual experiences may vary.

The mixed reception illustrates the challenge Apple faces in introducing its first foldable smartphone several years after competing manufacturers entered the market.

While the Duo’s engineering, materials, and screen design have impressed reviewers, the product also requires customers to accept compromises that are difficult to overlook at its $1,999 starting price.

Its camera system is less capable than that of some less expensive iPhones, its folded dimensions make it relatively heavy and thick, and its software has yet to take full advantage of the larger display.

At the same time, the phone offers an entirely different experience from a conventional smartphone, allowing users to carry a substantially larger screen in a device that can still fit into a pocket.

Tom’s Guide praised the Duo as the “best designed foldable yet,” reflecting the enthusiasm surrounding Apple’s approach to the category.

9to5Mac, meanwhile, concluded that most consumers would still be better served by a traditional iPhone.

For now, the Duo’s biggest test may have less to do with its innovative features than with how reliably its folding screen performs after weeks and months of regular use.

With reports of cracks appearing within hours of the product’s release, Apple faces an early challenge in reassuring customers that its most expensive smartphone can withstand the ordinary demands of daily operation.

{Matzav.com}

France was rocked by another wave of nationwide unrest today as approximately 410,000 demonstrators poured into the streets to protest rising living costs, stagnant wages, and deteriorating public services. What began as largely peaceful marches descended into violent confrontations in several cities, with nearly 1,000 people arrested, two seriously injured, and police battling masked rioters who hurled explosives, erected barricades, and attempted to overwhelm security forces.

The disturbances marked the second consecutive weekend of major unrest in France, prompting authorities to deploy approximately 70,000 police officers and gendarmes across the country. The massive security operation included armored vehicles, water cannons, and special riot-control units as officials sought to prevent a repeat of the widespread destruction that accompanied the previous weekend’s demonstrations.

Paris experienced one of its largest protest gatherings, with an estimated 110,000 people participating in a sanctioned march through the capital. Demonstrators carried signs demanding higher wages, improvements to public education, greater protection of public services, and economic relief for struggling households.

Although much of the demonstration proceeded peacefully, violence erupted as the march concluded, when groups of masked individuals began confronting police, throwing projectiles, and attempting to move beyond the authorized protest route.

Authorities reported that approximately 500 rioters were involved in the most serious confrontations in Paris, while disturbances were also reported in Marseille, Bordeaux, Toulouse, and other French cities.

The scale of the unrest forced the closure of the Louvre and several other major Paris museums, with officials taking precautions against possible vandalism and attacks on public buildings.

French Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez said nearly 1,000 people had been detained nationwide, a sharp increase from the approximately 385 arrests recorded during the previous weekend’s violence.

Despite the confrontations, Nuñez maintained that the overall security situation had improved compared with the preceding week, when rioters set fires, smashed storefronts, looted businesses, and attacked public facilities.

“The marches went well,” the interior minister said, emphasizing that most participants had demonstrated peacefully.

He nevertheless acknowledged that police had encountered serious violence from organized groups of extremists.

“In Paris, we had a major demonstration that took place peacefully, like most protest marches across the entire country,” Nuñez told reporters.

“But as we had anticipated, several high-risk groups formed, consisting of individuals who disguised themselves, mostly dressed in black, radical far-left and ultra-left activists.”

Nuñez said police had successfully prevented the disorder from spreading into some of the capital’s most sensitive areas, although limited looting occurred.

Unlike the previous weekend, authorities reported “no targeted attacks” against municipal buildings and police stations.

Security forces nevertheless encountered an “extremely high level of violence … with projectiles constantly being thrown and mortar fireworks fired.”

The minister said there were “500 rioters who were absolutely determined to attack internal security forces or carry out looting,” as the Paris march came to an end.

At least two people sustained serious injuries during the nationwide disturbances. In Toulouse, a 20-year-old man suffered devastating injuries when several of his fingers were blown off. Another person was seriously injured in Clermont-Ferrand.

Authorities did not immediately establish whether the injured individuals were protesters, bystanders, or members of law enforcement, nor did they disclose the precise circumstances of the injuries.

The confrontation in Paris intensified near Porte de Vincennes, on the southeastern side of the capital, where the authorized demonstration was supposed to end.

As crowds gathered at the conclusion of the march, riot police deployed high-pressure water cannons to disperse demonstrators attempting to continue beyond the permitted area.

Masked rioters responded by throwing stones, smoke devices, and other objects at police officers. Security forces subsequently used tear gas to push back the crowds.

A police helicopter was dispatched to assist ground units in locating smaller groups that had separated from the main demonstration.

According to authorities, the principal march along Cours de Vincennes “has been completely dispersed along the Cours de Vincennes” and “a Gendarmerie helicopter has been deployed to support ground units and locate any remaining rioters.”

Earlier in the day, Paris police officials had expressed cautious confidence that the demonstrations could be contained.

“For the moment, the situation is pretty much under control, apart from some attempts to block the peripherique, which we stopped,” said Olivier Bourde, the Paris police force’s deputy director for public order.

“Last week, we finished at 2 a.m. Now, it will depend on if the protesters disperse normally, like a normal protest, or if we have breakaway groups.”

The situation deteriorated as evening approached, with officers confronting groups that refused to disperse and attempted to break through police lines.

In Marseille, demonstrators wearing masks constructed makeshift barricades from large sheets of metal near Porte d’Aix, where a permitted march had been scheduled to conclude.

Other protesters threw rocks and glass bottles at riot police, while some launched fireworks directly toward security personnel.

Video recorded by French journalist Nicolas Farmine showed groups of rioters firing red and green mortar-style fireworks toward officers as other demonstrators cheered.

The masked protesters subsequently advanced toward police positions while continuing to launch the fireworks.

Officers responded with tear gas before moving forward with shields and batons to clear the area.

Similar disturbances unfolded in Bordeaux, where protesters and police clashed in the historic Place de la Bourse.

Masked individuals erected barricades and threw objects at officers, prompting police to deploy tear gas across the square.

Local authorities warned residents and visitors to stay away from the area.

“Hostile groups are attacking law enforcement, throwing projectiles and building barricades in Place de la Bourse. Avoid the area,” officials announced.

The unrest also extended to Toulouse, Lyon, and other cities where police maintained a heavy presence to prevent violence and property destruction.

In Paris, groups of demonstrators climbed onto bus shelters, waving French and Palestinian flags alongside other banners while chanting against President Emmanuel Macron and the police.

“Everyone hates the police!” some protesters shouted.

Others called for “Macron demission,” demanding that the French president resign.

The nationwide security deployment included approximately 20 armored vehicles stationed in Paris and Marseille.

The French National Gendarmerie used its Centaure armored vehicles, each weighing approximately 14.5 tons and capable of transporting ten officers.

The vehicles are equipped with ballistic protection and other security features intended to protect officers during violent confrontations.

France has acquired a fleet of approximately 90 Centaure vehicles at a reported cost approaching 70 million euros, or more than $78 million.

Authorities also deployed approximately 15 water cannons as part of the nationwide operation.

Early in the demonstrations, police reported arresting at least 135 individuals, many of whom were allegedly carrying fireworks, metal ball bearings, or other objects that could be used as weapons.

“We have to be ultra, ultra responsive. We have significant calls for disruption from political groups and quite simply from criminals,” Nuñez warned.

“It is going to be a long day.”

As the protests continued, the arrest figures climbed substantially, ultimately approaching 1,000 nationwide.

French officials attributed much of the violence to organized radical groups that joined otherwise peaceful demonstrations and attempted to provoke confrontations with security forces.

Nuñez specifically blamed “ultra-left” activists for an “an extremely elevated level of violence,” arguing that their actions were responsible for much of the disorder.

The demonstrations themselves were driven by a broad range of economic and political grievances.

The latest wave of protests began last month following complaints about staffing shortages at a high school southwest of Paris, a dispute that quickly developed into a wider movement over the condition of France’s education system.

Students have demanded additional teachers, improved educational resources, and the creation of approximately 250,000 additional places in higher education.

They have also called for changes to Parcoursup, France’s national university admissions system, which critics argue places excessive restrictions on students seeking higher education.

Workers and labor organizations have joined the demonstrations to demand increased wages, improved pensions, and stronger protections for public services.

Many protesters say their earnings have failed to keep pace with the rising cost of food, housing, and other basic necessities.

Others have expressed anger over government spending priorities, political corruption, and the handling of international conflicts.

Palestinian flags were visible at several demonstrations, with some participants using the protests to express opposition to Israeli military operations in Gaza.

Economists have described the unrest as the product of several overlapping grievances rather than a single political or economic event.

Andrew Kenningham, chief Europe economist at Capital Economics, said there was no one “single trigger” responsible for the demonstrations.

Some protesters openly defended the violence that accompanied the demonstrations, arguing that peaceful appeals had failed to bring meaningful changes.

Kyara Nissan Olivier, who participated in the Paris protests, said she had joined the movement because she believed the government was ignoring basic public grievances.

“I came here for my rights because apparently they’re still not respected,” Olivier said.

“What the police is doing is not legal. I’m scared to protest and that means it’s the start of the rise of fascism. I’m here for everything — at the start it was the high schools, but it’s like a snowball causing an avalanche.”

Olivier also defended the destruction that occurred during the previous weekend’s riots, suggesting that anger over economic hardship had reached a breaking point.

“The breakage is part of it … It’s not black and white. Violence is a response. There’s people who are angry, there’s people who have suffered. It’s enough. That’s it. It’s a logical response,” she said.

Another demonstrator, Oussama Mendrek, accused police of contributing to the confrontations and said the government needed to address the financial pressures facing working families.

“They have to raise the minimum wage. Because people are scared of working for nothing. People work and by the end of the month they have nothing to eat,” Mendrek said.

The demonstrations have also become a major political confrontation for President Emmanuel Macron, with opposition leaders using the unrest to challenge his administration.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon, leader of the far-left France Unbowed party, participated in the Paris march and praised the scale of the mobilization.

He described the demonstrations as a “total victory for the social movement.”

“The march gathered at the newly authorized location and is now moving forward peacefully, stretching over more than four kilometers,” Mélenchon wrote on X.

“The attempts by the Prefect of Police and (Prime Minister Sebastien) Lecornu to incite disorder have failed completely.”

“It is time for the authorities to yield; otherwise, the only option left to them will soon be the exit door,” he added.

Mélenchon also demanded increased government investment in education, warning Macron that continued resistance to the protesters’ demands could intensify calls for his departure.

“After that, all he’ll have left is the exit door,” he said.

The unrest has also become a prominent issue for Marine Le Pen and the National Rally, France’s nationalist right-wing party.

Le Pen has sharply criticized the government’s handling of the disturbances, arguing that the destruction reflects a broader breakdown in public order and confidence in political leadership.

“You saw yesterday our cities, our streets, our country, battered, mistreated, ransacked,” Le Pen wrote on X on October 18.

“We are living through a profound crisis of trust, of authority that poses a threat to democracy,” she continued.

“This observation must alert us: our country is caught in a vise, or even taken hostage, between violence and powerlessness.”

The protests coincided with the National Rally’s party congress in Orléans, where Jordan Bardella secured another term as party president.

Le Pen and Bardella are positioning their party for the 2027 presidential election, with public concern over security, immigration, and economic conditions becoming central political issues.

Prediction-market prices also shifted during the unrest, with contracts associated with a Le Pen presidential victory trading at approximately 65% on Polymarket and 50% on Kalshi.

Those figures represent market prices rather than election results or scientific polling, and they can change substantially as political developments unfold.

The market movements came as other potential presidential contenders, including Cannes Mayor David Lisnard, saw lower prices on the same platforms.

The demonstrations were not confined to France. A broader wave of protests unfolded across several European countries, with clashes reported in Italy, Spain, Belgium, and Albania.

In Italy, demonstrations over living costs, housing, pensions, education, and government policies spread through Rome, Milan, Turin, Naples, and Bologna.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni announced additional security measures, including the deployment of approximately 500 troops to Milan and tougher penalties involving minors accused of participating in violent disturbances.

The additional deployment followed unrest the previous weekend, when approximately 2,000 young demonstrators gathered in Milan and groups of rioters looted clothing and sporting goods stores.

Italian authorities said many of those involved were young people, including second-generation Italians and foreign nationals.

Today’s demonstrations in Milan were largely peaceful and gradually dispersed during the evening, but violence continued in other cities.

In Turin, protesters clashed with police into the night, while in Rome, officers deployed water cannons and tear gas near Piazza della Repubblica after confrontations involving anti-war demonstrators.

Police also intervened in Bologna, where rioters erected barricades using garbage containers and other objects.

Some Italian protesters carried banners bearing slogans such as “No to lies of the state.”

In Spain, hundreds of demonstrators gathered in central Barcelona as student-led protests spread across the country.

Video footage showed a large fire burning in a city street while police vehicles moved through the area attempting to restore order.

Rioters were reported to have caused “damage to vehicles, businesses, and urban furniture,” according to local reporting.

Belgium also experienced unrest, with police using water cannons to dismantle barricades erected by students in Brussels.

In Albania, demonstrators demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Edi Rama set fire to garbage containers and threw stones during confrontations with police.

Security forces responded with water cannons outside the Ministry of Education in the capital, Tirana.

The widespread demonstrations have underscored mounting frustration across parts of Europe over the cost of living, public services, and government policies, although the protests in individual countries have been driven by different local grievances.

In France, the size of today’s demonstrations was disputed by organizers and government authorities.

The Interior Ministry estimated that 410,000 people participated nationwide, including 110,000 in Paris.

The CGT labor union, which helped organize the demonstrations, placed the national turnout at approximately 800,000 and estimated that 250,000 people participated in the capital.

The union accused the government of imposing excessive restrictions on public demonstrations and pledged to continue its campaign.

Organizers have called for another nationwide day of strikes and demonstrations on November 5, indicating that the movement is unlikely to end with the latest weekend of unrest.

The demonstrations have also placed additional pressure on Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu, whose government is struggling to address public dissatisfaction while confronting difficult budgetary and economic decisions.

In Lyon, where unauthorized gatherings continued despite restrictions, local authorities reported further property damage, injuries, and arrests.

The city’s mayor, Grégory Doucet, criticized the decision to prohibit demonstrations in certain areas, arguing that the restrictions had contributed to gatherings outside approved locations.

He also condemned the destruction of businesses and public property, insisting that such acts had no connection to the legitimate demands of demonstrators.

Marseille Mayor Benoît Payan likewise acknowledged that the security operation had prevented a recurrence of some of the previous weekend’s worst disturbances, while warning that groups of rioters continued attempting to loot businesses.

Police in Marseille worked alongside municipal officers and emergency personnel to contain the violence and protect commercial areas.

The mayor urged residents to remain cautious and allow security and rescue personnel to carry out their duties.

Despite the significant police presence and the large number of arrests, the French government faces the prospect of continued demonstrations in the coming weeks.

Today’s events demonstrated both the scale of public dissatisfaction and the difficulty authorities face in separating peaceful demonstrations from groups determined to engage in violence.

With hundreds of thousands of people taking to the streets, renewed calls for Macron’s resignation, and further strikes already being organized, France remains in the midst of a major confrontation over economic conditions, government policy, and public order.

Rep. Ilhan Omar has enlisted two prominent Washington attorneys with extensive experience in politically sensitive federal investigations as she confronts scrutiny of her immigration history and questions surrounding her family’s finances. The Minnesota Democrat’s new legal team includes an attorney who represented President Joe Biden during the investigation into his use of an autopen and another who played a major role in both impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump.

The attorneys, Amy Jeffress and Joshua Matz, are partners at the Washington law firm Hecker Fink. Both have handled major legal disputes involving Congress, the Justice Department, and the Trump administration, although neither is principally known for practicing immigration law.

Their involvement comes as federal authorities investigate matters involving Omar’s immigration records and financial disclosures, including questions about the reported value of business interests associated with her husband, Timothy Mynett. The investigation has also brought renewed attention to longstanding allegations about Omar’s earlier marriage, which she has denied.

Jeffress became Biden’s personal attorney in 2025, replacing Bob Bauer, who had served as one of the former president’s closest legal advisers.

In that capacity, she represented Biden as investigators examined his administration’s use of an autopen to sign official documents, including presidential pardons and legislation. The controversy centered on whether the automated signatures had been properly authorized and whether Biden had personally approved the actions taken in his name.

Before joining Hecker Fink, Jeffress worked at the prominent Washington firm Arnold & Porter, where she developed a practice involving high-profile investigations, government enforcement matters, and disputes involving federal officials.

Her previous clients included Lisa Page, the former FBI attorney whose private text messages with FBI official Peter Strzok became a major controversy during investigations into the bureau’s handling of matters involving Trump and the 2016 presidential election.

The messages, which included criticism of Trump, prompted allegations of political bias within the FBI. Page subsequently left the bureau, and the episode became a significant point of contention in congressional investigations of federal law enforcement.

Jeffress also served as outside counsel to the House committee investigating the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Her work included assisting the committee in its efforts to obtain testimony and documents from government officials and other witnesses.

Omar’s second attorney, Joshua Matz, has an equally prominent history in legal battles involving Trump and congressional Democrats.

Matz represented House Democrats during both impeachment proceedings against Trump and subsequently worked with the House January 6 committee.

He has also represented several major universities, including Brown University, New York University, and Columbia University, in legal disputes involving the Trump administration.

The selection of attorneys with extensive experience in congressional investigations and politically charged litigation has attracted attention because the federal inquiry reportedly encompasses both immigration-related questions and the financial affairs of Omar’s household.

Federal authorities searched Omar’s Washington, D.C., residence on October 12 as part of an investigation into whether immigration documents submitted decades ago contained false information.

Investigators from Homeland Security Investigations, the investigative division of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, executed a court-authorized search warrant and seized documents, electronic devices, and Omar’s passport.

The search was carried out under restrictions imposed by a federal magistrate judge to protect constitutional interests associated with Omar’s position as a member of Congress.

The investigation reportedly involves questions about immigration paperwork submitted by Omar’s family when they entered the United States after fleeing Somalia. Authorities have also examined whether information concerning her birth date and her father’s background was accurately represented during the immigration process.

Omar has consistently denied wrongdoing and maintains that she obtained American citizenship legally.

The investigation has also renewed attention to allegations involving her former husband, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi. Claims circulated for years that Elmi was actually her brother and that their marriage was connected to immigration fraud. Omar has repeatedly denied those accusations, and the allegations have not been established in court.

Documents associated with the recent search reportedly reference the name Nur Said Elmi, a detail that has attracted attention because of the earlier controversy surrounding her marriage and immigration history.

The immigration inquiry is separate from another federal investigation concerning Omar’s financial disclosures, although both matters have intensified scrutiny of the congresswoman.

Questions surrounding her finances emerged after congressional disclosure forms listed business interests associated with her husband, Timothy Mynett, at values potentially reaching $30 million.

The reported increase attracted attention because earlier filings had placed the couple’s financial holdings at substantially lower amounts.

Omar subsequently amended her disclosures, explaining that accounting errors had resulted in misleading valuations of the businesses. Her office maintained that the original figures did not accurately reflect the couple’s net worth.

Federal prosecutors have nevertheless continued examining the financial filings, while congressional Republicans have sought additional information about Mynett’s business interests.

The congresswoman recently addressed her personal finances during an interview with MS NOW, claiming that she lives “paycheck to paycheck” despite receiving an annual congressional salary of $174,000.

She also described difficulties contacting her legal representatives during the search of her home, alleging that federal agents prevented her from speaking with an attorney for approximately one hour.

The raid prompted an immediate response from Jeffress and Matz, who challenged the manner in which federal investigators conducted the operation.

In a seven-page letter sent to the Justice Department on October 16, the attorneys demanded the return of Omar’s passport, electronic devices, and other property taken from her residence.

They accused federal authorities of disregarding judicial safeguards intended to protect the constitutional rights of members of Congress.

The lawyers also demanded preservation of recordings made during the search and questioned whether investigators had properly complied with requirements involving notification of congressional legal officials.

In their letter, the attorneys characterized the investigation as politically motivated and challenged its legal foundation.

“This vindictive, retributive, and politically motivated criminal investigation into one of the President’s chief congressional critics violates Representative Omar’s constitutional rights and threatens the separation of powers,” the attorneys wrote.

They further argued that federal authorities had failed to establish a legitimate basis for questioning Omar’s citizenship.

The Justice Department rejected the accusations, maintaining that investigators had complied with the applicable legal requirements and the court’s instructions.

The investigation has also expanded beyond Omar herself. Reports indicate that several members of her family received grand jury subpoenas seeking information concerning their immigration histories and documents submitted to federal authorities.

The renewed inquiry follows an earlier examination of Omar’s immigration background during Trump’s first administration. According to subsequent reporting, immigration officials who reviewed similar allegations in 2019 did not find sufficient evidence to justify a full investigation at that time.

Omar’s attorneys have pointed to the earlier review in questioning why the Justice Department is now pursuing allegations that have circulated for years.

The congresswoman has also sought financial assistance from supporters to cover the mounting expenses associated with her legal defense.

In a video recorded inside a moving vehicle and released Tuesday evening, Omar warned that the legal proceedings would impose a substantial financial burden.

“It is going to be a very expensive and challenging time and so we appreciate whether you’re able to send $5, $10, $20,” she said.

A review of Omar’s campaign finance disclosures found no payments to Jeffress, Matz, or their law firm recorded through the October 15 reporting deadline. That does not necessarily establish whether the attorneys have received compensation through other arrangements.

Meanwhile, President Trump has continued publicly criticizing Omar and calling for her departure from Congress.

On Thursday evening, Trump demanded that the Minnesota Democrat “IMMEDIATELY” resign, accusing her of having used a different name when taking her oath of office.

The president has repeatedly raised questions about Omar’s immigration background and has defended the administration’s scrutiny of the congresswoman.

Omar, one of the most prominent members of the progressive Democratic group commonly known as the Squad, has frequently clashed with Trump over immigration enforcement, foreign policy, and other administration priorities.

Barack Obama returned to the campaign trail today with a series of attacks on President Donald Trump and Ohio Republican gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, accusing the administration of fueling higher living costs, pursuing an unnecessary war with Iran, and lowering standards of political conduct. Speaking before a Democratic crowd in Cleveland, Obama also ridiculed Trump’s renovations of the White House and condemned a controversial campaign advertisement targeting Ramaswamy’s Democratic opponent.

The appearance at Cleveland Public Auditorium marked the beginning of a series of campaign events intended to strengthen Democratic candidates ahead of the November 3 midterm elections. Obama appeared alongside former Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, who is attempting to reclaim his Senate seat from Republican incumbent Jon Husted, and former state health director Amy Acton, who is running against Ramaswamy for governor.

Obama’s speech was particularly critical of Trump’s handling of the economy and the conflict with Iran. He argued that the president had failed to deliver on promises to lower everyday expenses while devoting considerable attention to changes at the White House.

The former president singled out Trump’s construction of a new White House ballroom, renovations to the Rose Garden, and installation of an upgraded presidential helicopter landing area.

“I mean, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but he seems very focused on home renovations,” Obama told the crowd. “He should be on HGTV.”

Obama then mocked the president’s preference for elaborate gold decorations, drawing laughter from the audience.

“He’s got the White House looking like Saddam Hussein opened a Cheesecake Factory,” Obama said.

The comments referred to several projects undertaken during Trump’s second term, including a new ballroom intended to accommodate large official gatherings. The administration has defended the construction as a practical improvement to the White House, noting that major events have traditionally required temporary facilities on the grounds.

The ballroom project has been among the administration’s more visible construction initiatives, while changes to the Rose Garden and helicopter landing facilities have also drawn public attention.

Obama’s criticism came despite controversy surrounding the cost of his own presidential center in Chicago. The Obama Presidential Center’s projected price has exceeded $1 billion, substantially above its original estimate of approximately $350 million, and the development has faced questions about construction expenses, delays, and associated public infrastructure costs.

Beyond the White House renovations, Obama accused Trump of failing to address the economic concerns that helped return him to office.

He argued that Americans had been promised lower prices but were instead confronting increased expenses, including higher energy costs that Obama attributed partly to the conflict with Iran.

The former president directly criticized Trump’s decision to launch military operations against Tehran.

“Most importantly, he decided to start an unnecessary war that nobody asked for and nobody voted for,” Obama said.

Obama also defended the nuclear agreement negotiated between Iran and world powers during his presidency, asserting that the arrangement had successfully prevented Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

“Iran didn’t have nuclear weapons because I had put a deal in place that everybody knows kept them from getting nukes,” he declared.

Trump withdrew the United States from the agreement in 2018, arguing that its restrictions were inadequate and that it failed to address Iran’s ballistic missile development and support for terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East.

The agreement had provided sanctions relief in exchange for restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities and international inspections. Although inspectors verified Iranian compliance with several provisions before the American withdrawal, critics argued that the agreement’s expiration provisions and other limitations left significant long-term security concerns unresolved.

Trump has repeatedly defended his decision to abandon the arrangement, maintaining that Iran could not be permitted to develop nuclear weapons and that stronger economic and military pressure was necessary.

Obama also attacked the administration’s immigration policies and trade measures, including tariffs imposed on imports from Canada.

Mocking the administration’s confrontational approach toward America’s northern neighbor, Obama remarked, “These are the people who gave us maple syrup and Martin Short.”

“Canadians are the nicest people,” he added.

The former president also directed criticism at Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, portraying him as excessively concerned with appearances and military culture rather than the administration’s broader responsibilities.

“He’s very focused on very important matters like the jawlines and testosterone levels of our troops and live-streaming executions, because that’s how he thinks you cultivate that manly, warrior spirit,” Obama said.

“How much time do you think this defense secretary spends looking at himself in the mirror in the morning?” he asked.

Hegseth has defended his approach to military leadership as an effort to restore combat readiness, physical standards, and a stronger emphasis on military effectiveness.

Some of Obama’s strongest remarks, however, were directed at Ramaswamy, whose gubernatorial campaign has become embroiled in controversy over an advertisement featuring Acton’s estranged mother.

The advertisement includes accusations by Donna Arthur, Acton’s mother, who challenges her daughter’s account of her childhood and attacks her honesty.

Acton has publicly discussed experiencing abuse, neglect, and homelessness during her childhood. Her campaign has also released court records and contemporary news reports supporting her account of being removed from her mother’s home following serious allegations of abuse involving her stepfather.

Arthur and Acton have reportedly been estranged since 1978.

Ramaswamy’s campaign initially released a 60-second advertisement featuring Arthur, who accused her daughter of lying about her past and questioned her suitability for public office.

The campaign announced plans to spend approximately $4 million promoting the advertisement across Ohio.

The commercial drew criticism from both Democrats and Republicans, including Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, who called for its removal.

Nevertheless, Ramaswamy defended the advertisement, maintaining that questions about Acton’s truthfulness and personal history were legitimate campaign issues.

President Trump and Vice President JD Vance also defended Ramaswamy’s decision to run the advertisement.

By Saturday, the campaign had begun airing a shortened 30-second version that removed some of Arthur’s more personal accusations, including statements questioning Acton’s need for help and disputing her account of having lived in a tent.

Obama devoted part of his Cleveland speech to the controversy, accusing Ramaswamy of crossing basic standards of decency in pursuit of political office.

“In recent days, we’ve seen there is no line he will not cross, no low he will not sink to,” Obama said.

The former president referred to Acton’s accounts of childhood abuse, neglect, and homelessness, arguing that Ramaswamy had improperly turned those experiences into political ammunition.

“There’s a decency we should expect out of our public officials,” Obama continued. “And I don’t know what’s happened where the standards of behavior are so low that somebody could run an ad like that.”

Obama also characterized Ramaswamy as a politician eager for attention and willing to pursue it at the expense of accepted standards of conduct.

The controversy has become a central issue in the closing days of Ohio’s gubernatorial campaign, with Acton accusing her Republican opponent of deliberately exploiting painful events from her childhood.

Speaking at the rally before Obama, Acton addressed Ramaswamy’s campaign directly.

“My opponent has chosen to exploit, intentionally, my childhood to save his stumbling campaign, but it’s not going to work,” she said. “Decency still matters.”

Acton then intensified her criticism of Ramaswamy.

“Mr. Ramaswamy, you are not just out of touch, you are out for yourself and you are a danger to my state. Apparently there is no low to which you won’t stoop.”

Ramaswamy, a businessman who sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, has made his gubernatorial campaign a major test of his political appeal in his home state.

The contest has attracted national attention because Ohio has increasingly supported Republican candidates in presidential elections, despite having voted for Obama in both 2008 and 2012.

Trump carried Ohio in 2016, 2020, and 2024, winning the state by more than 11 percentage points in the most recent presidential election.

Ohio has not elected a Democratic governor since Ted Strickland won the office in 2006.

Nevertheless, recent polling has indicated a competitive race between Acton and Ramaswamy, with some surveys placing the Democrat narrowly ahead within the margin of error.

The Senate contest between Brown and Husted has also become an important battleground as Republicans and Democrats compete for control of Congress.

Brown, who previously served three terms in the Senate, is attempting a political comeback against Husted, a Republican who succeeded Vice President Vance in the chamber.

Both Trump and Vance have traveled to Ohio in recent weeks to campaign for Republican candidates, while Democrats are relying on Obama and other prominent party figures to generate enthusiasm among their supporters.

Obama acknowledged during his speech that Trump would remain president for another two years, regardless of the midterm election results.

He argued, however, that voters could change the balance of power in Congress and state governments.

“We’re not stuck with a spineless Congress and Republican governors who are handling lawlessness and carelessness and cruelty and indifference for working people,” Obama said.

He characterized the administration’s first two years as a period of political turmoil and urged Democrats to view the midterms as an opportunity to respond.

“After two years of chaos and cruelty and corruption and incompetence … you get a chance to say enough is enough,” he declared.

The Cleveland rally was the first stop in a broader campaign swing for Obama, who was also scheduled to appear in Detroit on Saturday evening to support Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed.

El-Sayed, a former public health official, is running against Republican Mike Rogers in another closely watched Senate contest.

The Michigan campaign has presented its own complications for Democrats, including earlier criticism of Obama’s political record by El-Sayed himself.

Following Obama’s reelection in 2012, El-Sayed publicly expressed disappointment with the president’s failure to fulfill some progressive campaign promises. More recently, however, he has described Obama as an important influence on his political development.

Obama is also scheduled to travel to Georgia on Wednesday to campaign alongside Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff and gubernatorial candidate Keisha Lance Bottoms.

The former president’s return to the campaign trail reflects the Democratic Party’s efforts to mobilize voters during the final stretch of an election that will determine control of Congress for the remaining two years of Trump’s presidency.

For Republicans, the campaign has centered heavily on defending the administration’s economic and national security policies, while portraying Democratic candidates as offering a return to policies rejected by voters in 2024.

Trump has continued holding campaign appearances of his own, including events supporting Republican candidates in competitive states.

The exchanges between Obama and Trump have also revived their longstanding political rivalry, which dates back to Trump’s emergence as a prominent national political figure during Obama’s presidency.

With Election Day approaching on November 3, Obama’s Cleveland appearance demonstrated that the two men remain central figures in their respective parties’ efforts to frame the stakes of the midterm elections, even though neither is personally on the ballot.

The rally also placed Ramaswamy’s controversial advertisement at the center of the national political discussion, adding another issue to an already contentious Ohio gubernatorial race.

[COMMUNICATED]

Quiet Kavanah is a gentle reminder, a shared commitment to quiet the distractions and focus on what matters.

It isn’t about “shushing” others; it’s about connecting to the meaning of the words you’re saying. 

Make a personal commitment or sign up for your shul TODAY at quietkavanah.com.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is facing accusations that his administration is using $1.6 million in taxpayer money to influence the outcome of five ballot proposals that would expand executive authority, eliminate certain layers of government oversight, and reduce opportunities for public input. Critics charge that the city-funded advertising campaign is effectively promoting measures that would transfer important decision-making powers away from elected representatives and local communities.

The controversy centers on five proposed amendments to the City Charter that New Yorkers will decide in the November 3 general election. The measures were placed on the ballot by a 15-member Charter Revision Commission appointed by Mamdani and would make substantial changes to how the city approves outdoor dining structures, street redesigns, government contracts, construction permits, and other municipal matters.

New York City law prohibits public officials from spending government money to campaign for or against ballot proposals. Opponents contend that the Mamdani administration is attempting to circumvent that restriction by presenting its promotional effort as a neutral public education campaign.

The administration and the Charter Revision Commission have launched an extensive advertising effort that includes social media videos, text messages, and other public communications urging residents to participate in the upcoming election. The advertisements repeatedly characterize the proposals as a way to create a “faster government” by eliminating unnecessary bureaucracy.

Critics argue that the campaign highlights the supposed advantages of the amendments while failing to explain that several proposals would also eliminate existing checks on mayoral authority and reduce the influence of the City Council, community boards, and borough presidents.

One video released by the Mayor’s Office last month features Mamdani moving rapidly through City Hall in a comedic sequence accompanied by cartoon-style sound effects. In the video, the mayor declares that “New Yorkers will be able to vote on how fast our government runs.”

Opponents maintain that the presentation amounts to a political sales pitch rather than an objective explanation of the proposals, particularly because it does not address the potential loss of public oversight.

Councilwoman Joann Ariola, a Queens Republican, accused the administration of using government resources to advance the mayor’s political objectives.

“Taxpayer dollars are supposed to be used to serve the public — not bankroll the mayor’s political agenda,” Ariola said.

“The whole thing is completely illegitimate, and we are getting closer to socialist totalitarianism every day with this administration. These proposals want to take power away from the people and put it in the hands of bureaucrats.”

Councilman Phil Wong, a Queens Democrat, similarly questioned whether the advertising effort complies with the restrictions on government-funded election advocacy.

Wong said “we’ve seen” previous mayors “walk right up to the line” separating permissible public information from prohibited political campaigning, but argued that Mamdani’s effort goes considerably further.

“this isn’t even close. It’s way over,” Wong said.

Among the most disputed amendments is a proposal changing the approval process for private structures and installations on public property. The measure covers sidewalk cafes, outdoor dining sheds, accessibility ramps, benches, planters, and similar uses of streets and sidewalks.

The administration argues that the current process imposes unnecessary delays and expenses on businesses and property owners. Under the proposed changes, however, public hearings would no longer be mandatory, and the City Council would lose its existing authority to reject sidewalk cafe applications after approval by the Department of Transportation.

Community boards, borough presidents, and local council members would continue receiving notice of applications and would retain the ability to submit comments, but several formal review requirements would be eliminated. Opponents say those changes would weaken neighborhood influence over decisions affecting public spaces.

Another proposal would accelerate the installation of bus lanes, bicycle lanes, and other transportation projects by eliminating certain consultation requirements currently imposed on the Department of Transportation. Under the proposed arrangement, the agency would have greater flexibility to proceed with street redesigns without the existing mandatory review process involving community boards and other government agencies.

The same amendment would change how the city handles certain sales and leases of municipal property. Some transactions involving unused city-owned land would be transferred to a faster approval process involving the City Planning Commission rather than the existing City Council review.

It would also eliminate several approval requirements for city office leases, including public hearings and reviews by the City Planning Commission and City Council. Supporters argue that the changes would reduce delays and unnecessary expenses, while opponents warn that they would remove important safeguards over decisions involving public property.

The remaining proposals address government contracting, construction permits, and the city’s financial reserves.

One measure would permit the Procurement Policy Board to simplify paperwork required of companies and nonprofit organizations seeking city contracts. It would also require the board to meet at least quarterly and make other changes intended to shorten the contracting process.

Another would establish a centralized construction-permitting system, authorize additional Department of Buildings officials to approve construction documents, and transfer responsibility for certain waterfront construction permits from the Department of Small Business Services to the Department of Buildings.

The fifth proposal would establish a financial reserve target equal to at least 12% of the city’s tax revenue from the preceding year. The money would be intended to help New York City respond to economic downturns, emergencies, and unexpected budget shortfalls.

Although the city already maintains a rainy-day fund, there is currently no comparable target governing the amount it should hold. The amendment would require the administration to develop a methodology for reaching the proposed reserve level, with actual deposits remaining subject to the normal budget approval process.

Opposition to the transportation-related amendment has also emerged among Brooklyn residents concerned about the expansion of bicycle infrastructure and dedicated bus lanes.

A coalition of neighborhood organizations operating under the name “Our Streets! Our Voices! Our Vote!” announced plans for a demonstration outside Barclays Center on Saturday. The groups oppose what they describe as the city’s anti-car policies and object to proposals that would reduce residents’ opportunities to challenge street redesigns.

Their concerns center on the possibility that transportation projects affecting parking, traffic patterns, and neighborhood access could advance with fewer opportunities for public objections.

Within City Hall, Council Speaker Julie Menin has circulated information among council members describing the potential reduction in legislative authority and government transparency if the amendments are adopted.

The City Council has not taken an official position on the five proposals, however, and Menin has indicated that she does not intend to authorize taxpayer-funded advertising concerning this year’s ballot questions.

That position contrasts with the Council’s approach during the 2025 election, when the legislative body, under then-Speaker Adrienne Adams, spent more than $1.5 million opposing charter amendments advanced by then-Mayor Eric Adams.

Those amendments were ultimately approved by voters and changed portions of the city’s land-use approval process, reducing the Council’s authority over certain housing and development decisions.

The earlier campaign has become part of the current debate over whether government institutions should use public money to influence voter decisions on proposed changes to the City Charter.

The controversy has also attracted the attention of Citizens Union New York, a government reform organization that questioned the legal boundaries of the Mamdani administration’s advertising campaign.

In a statement published on X, the organization said “it’s hard to tell” whether the promotional effort crosses “the line into electioneering.”

The organization said “the more honest truth” is that New York City lacks a clearly designated ethics enforcement authority responsible for ensuring compliance with the prohibition on government-funded election advocacy.

Citizens Union called for legislation expressly establishing that the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board “is indeed tasked with regulating the ban on government-funded electioneering.”

The organization’s concern centers on the absence of a clear enforcement mechanism for determining when an official public information campaign becomes an improper effort to influence an election.

The Conflicts of Interest Board, however, has indicated that the matter does not fall within its existing authority.

Board Executive Director Carolyn Miller said the legality of the administration’s advertising campaign “is beyond the scope of the board’s jurisdiction.”

The uncertainty has left critics questioning which government agency, if any, is responsible for investigating whether the taxpayer-funded campaign violates election-related restrictions.

The Mayor’s Office rejected the suggestion that the advertising constitutes improper political advocacy, maintaining that the Charter Revision Commission is fulfilling its responsibility to educate voters about the proposals.

“Per state law, the [Charter Revision] Commission is charged with providing public education and is leveraging the tools available to inform New Yorkers about the proposed ballot props in an effort to encourage them to make their voices heard,” a mayoral spokesperson said.

The administration has also defended the underlying amendments as practical measures intended to make city government more responsive and efficient.

When the Charter Revision Commission released its recommendations in July, officials said the changes could substantially shorten approval periods for outdoor dining applications, accelerate street improvement projects, and reduce delays in government contracting and construction permitting.

The commission has estimated that its proposed changes could reduce the outdoor dining approval process from approximately eight months to two months and shorten certain contracting procedures by as much as 30 days.

Those projected improvements form a central part of the administration’s argument that the amendments would benefit residents and businesses frustrated by lengthy bureaucratic procedures.

Critics counter that administrative efficiency should not come at the expense of public hearings, legislative review, and opportunities for neighborhood residents to influence government decisions.

The debate is unfolding as early voting begins ahead of the November 3 election, when New Yorkers will be asked to vote separately on each of the five proposed amendments.

If approved, the measures would alter several significant aspects of city government, including the authority of elected representatives, the procedures governing public property, and the requirements imposed on agencies before implementing transportation and construction projects.

The controversy over the $1.6 million advertising campaign has therefore become part of a larger dispute over how much authority should rest with the mayoral administration and how much oversight should remain in the hands of the City Council and the public.

With voters preparing to decide the proposals, opponents are demanding greater scrutiny of the administration’s use of taxpayer funds, while City Hall maintains that its campaign is a lawful effort to inform residents about changes it believes would improve the functioning of municipal government.

Elon Musk acknowledged today that SpaceX deliberately restricted access to its Starlink satellite internet network in Ukraine, interfering with military operations that depend on the technology for communications, drone missions, and defense against Russian attacks. The admission came after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced that service had finally returned to normal following more than a week of disruptions along the front lines.

Musk’s acknowledgment on X followed Zelenskyy’s announcement that both Starlink and Starshield, the military-oriented satellite communications system, were once again operating at their previous speeds. The restrictions had caused considerable concern among Ukrainian commanders, who reported interruptions to battlefield communications and drone operations.

The controversy has raised questions about who authorized the service limitations, particularly those involving Starshield, which plays an important role in Ukraine’s military communications and unmanned aircraft operations. Ukrainian officials have been seeking answers since the restrictions began last week.

“The speeds are now where they need to be,” Zelenskyy wrote on X, explaining that restoration efforts began overnight and that performance had improved sufficiently by this morning. The Ukrainian president said the return of normal service would help restore battlefield logistics and strengthen efforts to intercept Russian jet-powered Shahed drones.

Musk defended SpaceX’s decision to limit Starlink access, accusing the Ukrainian military of violating the conditions governing use of the commercial satellite network.

“Using Starlink, a civilian commercial service, for offensive drone strikes to kill people has never been allowed, nor should it be,” Musk wrote. “Ukraine military violated Starlink terms of service and used it for offensive drone strikes to kill people. That loophole was closed last week.”

The SpaceX chief distinguished between Starlink, the company’s commercial satellite internet service, and Starshield, its military-focused system. Musk maintained that decisions concerning Starshield restrictions were under the control of the United States government, rather than SpaceX acting independently.

He also pointed to the assistance SpaceX has provided Ukraine since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022, defending the company’s broader record of supporting Ukrainian communications and military capabilities.

The Starshield restrictions imposed last week reportedly caused serious operational difficulties for Ukrainian forces. Military commanders described drone losses, interrupted missions, and problems coordinating activities in areas where reliable satellite connectivity is essential.

The restoration comes amid a new diplomatic effort by Washington to bring the war to an end. On Wednesday, the Kremlin announced that Russia had agreed in principle to participate in another round of negotiations with the United States and Ukraine next month, potentially reopening talks aimed at reaching a settlement.

A separate diplomatic development emerged Friday, when Russia and Ukraine agreed to a limited ceasefire around Oleshky, a devastated town in the Russian-occupied portion of Ukraine’s southern Kherson region. The arrangement was brokered through an initiative involving First Lady Melania Trump and is intended to permit humanitarian assistance and civilian evacuations. The temporary ceasefire is scheduled to begin October 29.

The satellite communications controversy has further complicated relations between Kyiv and Washington, which were already under pressure following President Trump’s reported agreement concerning Russian diesel purchases. Ukrainian officials viewed that development as a concession to Moscow at a time when they have been seeking stronger American pressure on Russia.

Ukrainian Defense Minister Yevhenii Khmara attributed the restoration of satellite communications to “direct dialogue” and Zelenskyy’s diplomatic engagement with American officials. He emphasized that the return of reliable connectivity was especially important “for our front, for the military, the work of drones, logistics and communications.”

Ukraine’s Defense Ministry reported that its monitoring equipment had detected stable Starlink and Starshield connections on systems moving at speeds exceeding 400 kilometers per hour, or approximately 250 miles per hour. During the restrictions, Ukrainian officials said connections had been disrupted when equipment traveled at approximately 160 kilometers per hour, severely limiting the effectiveness of certain drone operations.

The question of responsibility for the restrictions remains contentious. Trump has denied personally ordering the limitations and has defended Musk against accusations concerning the disruptions. Vice President JD Vance has suggested that the White House coordinated with Musk, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth have denied that the administration directed the restrictions.

Musk’s latest comments clarify SpaceX’s role in limiting the commercial Starlink service, although they do not settle the separate dispute over who authorized changes affecting Starshield. Reuters has previously reported that the directive to restrict Starshield originated within the White House, an account that has been disputed by administration officials.

In his public comments, Musk also stressed that Starlink has been essential to Ukraine’s ability to maintain communications since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022. He argued that SpaceX has provided extraordinary assistance to Ukraine, while maintaining that its commercial network should not be used for offensive attacks.

The developments unfolded as fighting continued across Ukraine and Russian-controlled territory despite the renewed diplomatic activity.

In Ukraine’s Kharkiv region, a Russian missile strike on the city of Lozova killed one man and wounded two other people, according to local authorities. The attack added to the continuing civilian casualties caused by Russian strikes on Ukrainian cities and infrastructure.

Meanwhile, Russian-installed officials in occupied Crimea reported electricity outages following overnight Ukrainian attacks. The disruptions affected several communities on the peninsula, which Russia seized from Ukraine in 2014.

Ukraine also reported striking military-related industrial facilities deep inside Russian territory. The Ukrainian General Staff announced that its forces had targeted a chemical manufacturing plant in Tolyatti, a Russian city whose industrial facilities produce materials used in rocket fuel.

Tolyatti Mayor Ilya Sukhikh confirmed that an overnight attack had damaged industrial installations in the city, although Russian authorities did not immediately provide a full assessment of the destruction.

Ukrainian forces also attacked an electronics manufacturing facility in Oryol, according to Ukraine’s General Staff. Ukrainian military officials said the plant produces components used in Russian cruise and ballistic missiles, making it a target in Kyiv’s campaign against Moscow’s weapons-production infrastructure.

Local authorities in Oryol reported that three people were killed in Friday’s attack. Ukrainian officials confirmed the strike on the industrial facility but did not provide an independent assessment of the reported casualties.

The attacks extended even farther into Russia, with Ukrainian drones reaching the Omsk region of western Siberia, more than 1,200 miles from the Ukrainian border.

Omsk Governor Vitaly Khotsenko acknowledged that drones had “reached a northern industrial hub,” indicating that Ukrainian unmanned aircraft had penetrated deep into Russian territory.

Russian online retailer Ozon subsequently reported that one of its logistics facilities in Omsk had been struck by a drone. The company said no employees were injured.

Ozon competes with Wildberries, another major Russian online retailer whose facilities have previously been targeted in Ukrainian attacks.

The continuing strikes underscore the intensity of the conflict even as Washington pursues renewed negotiations and limited humanitarian agreements.

For Ukraine, however, the immediate significance of the latest developments is the restoration of satellite communications that have become indispensable to its military operations.

The episode has also exposed the country’s dependence on technology controlled by an American private company and, in the case of Starshield, subject to decisions involving the U.S. government.

Although Kyiv says the systems have returned to their previous operating capabilities, the controversy has raised fresh questions about whether Ukraine can rely on uninterrupted access to the communications networks supporting its battlefield operations as the war continues.

{Matzav.com}

American intelligence agencies have warned that Iran is escalating efforts to assassinate U.S. officials and diplomats overseas, with some suspected operations already approaching advanced stages of preparation. The alarming intelligence has prompted Washington to reduce staffing at several diplomatic missions across the Middle East amid growing fears of another military confrontation with Tehran.

According to an Axios report, the warning was contained in an intelligence memorandum dated October 23 and sent to Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The document states that Iranian assassination activities have “substantially increased,” with some of the suspected plots reaching “advanced stages.”

The intelligence points to possible attacks against American personnel both within the Middle East and in other parts of the world. However, the memorandum does not publicly identify the intended victims, provide details about the suspected assassination plans, or specify which countries outside the region may be involved.

The State Department has already begun implementing precautionary measures at American diplomatic facilities. Earlier in the week, Washington directed family members and nonessential employees to depart from the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, as well as the American consulates in Jeddah and Dhahran.

The security measures were expanded Friday, when additional staffing reductions were ordered at U.S. diplomatic missions in the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, Qatar, and Jordan, according to an American official quoted by Axios.

Unlike the departure orders affecting designated personnel and family members in Saudi Arabia, the American embassies in the four other countries have not been subjected to mandatory evacuations. Those diplomatic missions remain operational, although they are functioning under heightened restrictions.

The intelligence warning originated with Director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton, who sent the October 23 memorandum to Rubio and copied CIA Director John Ratcliffe. The document, which was also reviewed by Reuters and CBS News, describes a growing threat to Americans serving abroad and raises concerns about whether enough government personnel have access to the intelligence needed to protect themselves.

Clayton wrote that U.S. intelligence agencies had received information through multiple channels indicating that Tehran was pursuing increasingly serious operations against American personnel.

“The lethal plotting efforts by the Iranians against U.S. citizens have reached advanced stages in both the Middle East and certain other countries,” the intelligence chief warned.

The memorandum also indicates that senior State Department officials have already been briefed on the underlying intelligence. Clayton expressed concern, however, that the information should reach a wider group of personnel who may be exposed to the threats.

To address that problem, he offered to work toward lowering the classification of as much of the intelligence as possible, enabling Rubio to distribute additional warnings to American diplomatic and government employees who would otherwise lack the necessary security clearances.

The effort reflects the urgency of the situation, as intelligence agencies seek to ensure that officials potentially facing assassination threats are informed without compromising sensitive intelligence sources or methods.

An American official confirmed that the State Department’s latest personnel decisions were influenced by intelligence concerning Iranian assassination efforts, as well as threats from the Iranian-backed Houthi movement in Yemen.

The official explained that Washington continuously reassesses security conditions at diplomatic posts and adjusts staffing when circumstances warrant additional precautions.

“When it comes to our staffing at embassies, we constantly evaluate new information about the security environment,” the official said.

“The threat of Houthi attacks and of Iranian terror plots targeting US officials are informing our decisions on staffing adjustments for embassies on RO Status in the region,” the official added.

The restrictions come amid an increasingly dangerous security environment across the Middle East, where Iranian-backed groups have continued threatening American interests and commercial shipping.

The Houthis have intensified attacks in the region, while shipping through the strategically important Strait of Hormuz has faced renewed threats and disruptions. The developments have heightened concern about the possibility of a broader confrontation involving Iran, Israel, and the United States.

The State Department also updated travel advisories Saturday for more than a dozen countries across the Middle East, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Iraq, citing increased threats associated with Iranian-backed Houthi activity.

The latest warnings arrive as the Trump administration considers whether to resume large-scale military operations against Iran following the American midterm elections on November 3.

American military planners have reportedly been preparing options for renewed strikes, including the possible deployment of additional naval forces to the region. The Washington Post reported that preparations could involve as many as three aircraft carriers and their accompanying warships, providing the administration with additional military options.

The possibility of renewed fighting has become a major concern for American diplomats and military personnel stationed throughout the Middle East, particularly as Tehran signals that it may respond more aggressively to another round of U.S. attacks.

Earlier this month, Iranian officials warned that the country was preparing a more forceful response if Washington resumed major strikes against Iranian territory.

President Donald Trump addressed the possibility of additional military action during a campaign rally in Florida on Friday, suggesting that Iran could avoid another American operation by reaching an agreement with Washington.

“We may do another little Operation Epic Fury, or [the Iranians] will agree [to a deal],” Trump said. “If they’re smart, they will just say, ‘Let’s get down to business,’ but I doubt they will do that because perhaps they’re not smart.”

The president’s remarks followed reports that American and Israeli officials have been considering the timing and scope of possible additional military action against Iran.

Although Washington has not announced a decision to launch another operation, the combination of military preparations, Iranian threats, and new intelligence concerning assassination plots has placed American personnel overseas on heightened alert.

The intelligence memorandum does not establish that an assassination attempt is imminent, and officials have not disclosed whether the suspected plots are directed at particular diplomats, military personnel, or other American government representatives.

Nevertheless, the warning that some operations have progressed to advanced stages has prompted the State Department to take additional precautions while intelligence agencies work to distribute the threat information more broadly.

Concern has spread throughout the Gerer chassidus following reports that the Gerer Rebbe, Rav Yaakov Aryeh Alter, is scheduled to undergo medical treatment on Sunday, October 25, at Hadassah Ein Kerem Hospital in Yerushalayim. According to sources, the treatment involves dialysis, which the Rebbe is expected to undergo during the coming period.

The news has prompted calls for tefillos throughout the chassidus and the broader Torah community for the Rebbe’s complete refuah sheleimah.

On Motzoei Shabbos, four of the Rebbe’s sons traveled to the ohel of the Gerer Rebbes in Yerushalayim to daven for their father’s health ahead of Sunday’s scheduled treatment.

Those participating included Rav Avrohom Mordechai Alter, Rav Nechemia Alter, Rav Yisroel Menachem Alter, and Rav Dovid Alter.

The four gathered at the resting places of the Imrei Emes and the Pnei Menachem, where they recited the entire fourth book of Tehillim and offered special tefillos for the Rebbe’s recovery.

Another son, Rav Shlomo Tzvi Alter, was not present at the gathering, as he is currently overseas accompanying orphaned bochurim from the Gerer chassidus.

The Rebbe has undergone medical treatment on several occasions over the past year. In September 2025, he was hospitalized at Hadassah Har Hatzofim Hospital in Yerushalayim after developing pneumonia. He was subsequently released to his home, where he continued receiving medical care and recuperating.

Earlier this year, the Rebbe also underwent treatment relating to difficulties affecting his eyes and vision, including a medical procedure in May followed by a period of rest and recovery.

In June, the Rebbe returned to a medical facility in the Tel Aviv area for additional treatment connected to his eyesight.

The latest reports indicate that Sunday’s scheduled treatment concerns dialysis, a medical procedure used when the kidneys are unable to adequately filter waste products and excess fluid from the blood.

No further details have been publicly confirmed regarding the underlying medical condition, the anticipated duration of treatment, or whether the Rebbe will remain hospitalized afterward.

The public is asked to be mispallel for the refuah sheleimah of Rav Yaakov Aryeh ben Yuta Hena besoch she’ar cholei Yisroel.

{Matzav.com}

Israel officially returned to Winter Time early Sunday morning, October 25, turning clocks back one hour and bringing earlier sunsets across the country. The change took effect at 2 a.m., when the time reverted to 1 a.m., giving residents an additional hour overnight. The new schedule will remain in place until March 26, 2027.

Under Israel’s Time Determination Law of 2013, the country ends Daylight Saving Time annually on the final Sunday in October. Clocks are moved forward again on the Friday preceding the final Sunday in March, marking the return of the longer daylight hours associated with spring and summer.

Most cellphones, computers, and other internet-connected devices should have made the adjustment automatically, provided their time settings are configured for automatic updates and the correct Israeli time zone. Residents using traditional clocks, watches, and appliances without automatic time adjustments must change them manually.

The return to Winter Time shifts an hour of daylight from the afternoon to the morning, meaning sunrise and sunset will both occur approximately one hour earlier according to the clock. The change is intended to better accommodate the shorter daylight hours of the winter months.

For workers and students, the adjustment means more daylight during the early morning commute. However, it also brings darkness earlier in the afternoon, shortening the amount of daylight available after school and work.

The earlier sunset can affect afternoon travel, outdoor activities, and daily schedules, particularly as the days continue to shorten toward the winter solstice in December. More commuters will find themselves traveling home after dark, while families will have fewer daylight hours available for activities later in the day.

The time change also temporarily affects the difference between Israel and the United States. Because most of the United States will not turn its clocks back until Sunday, November 1, Israel will be six hours ahead of New York and New Jersey for the coming week, rather than the usual seven. The seven-hour difference will resume when American clocks are adjusted next Sunday.

Israel’s current system dates to legislation approved by the Knesset in 2013, which extended Daylight Saving Time through the end of October. Previously, Israel often returned to standard time before Yom Kippur, a practice that generated recurring political disputes over the appropriate timing of the seasonal change.

The earlier arrangement was particularly complicated because Yom Kippur falls on different dates of the secular calendar each year. As a result, Israel sometimes ended Daylight Saving Time several weeks before European countries made their own adjustments.

Under the present schedule, Israel’s autumn clock change coincides with the European transition to standard time, while the United States follows a different timetable. The arrangement will remain in effect throughout the winter, with clocks in Israel scheduled to move forward again at 2 a.m. on Friday, March 26, 2027, when the country returns to Daylight Saving Time.

With Israel’s Knesset elections scheduled for Tuesday, October 27, tens of thousands of Israelis living or traveling overseas are making their way back to the country to cast their ballots, in an unusual election-season travel rush that has prompted special flight arrangements, expensive last-minute bookings, and political controversy.

Estimates circulating ahead of the election suggest that approximately 50,000 Israelis abroad may return specifically to participate in the vote, although that figure is a projection rather than a confirmed count of travelers.

Unlike Americans, who can generally vote by absentee ballot while living overseas, most Israeli citizens must be physically present in Israel to participate in national elections. Israeli law provides limited exceptions for certain official representatives stationed abroad, but ordinary citizens living or vacationing overseas generally cannot cast their ballots from another country.

That requirement has created a significant logistical challenge for Israelis determined to participate in an election that could determine whether Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu remains in office or an opposition coalition takes power.

For Israelis residing in the United States, Europe, and other countries, voting requires more than simply registering or mailing a ballot. They must arrange transportation to Israel, reach their assigned polling stations on Election Day, and, in many cases, return overseas shortly afterward.

The resulting demand has generated interest in special flights and organized travel initiatives intended to bring eligible voters home before polling stations open Tuesday morning.

The arrangements have also attracted political attention because the arrival of large numbers of voters from overseas could have an impact in a closely contested election, particularly if those travelers are concentrated among supporters of particular parties.

A fresh survey released by Fly&Vote on Thursday has raised the estimated number of returning voters to approximately 67,000, up from the 53,000 projected earlier this month. The updated figure suggests that interest in traveling to Israel for the election has continued to grow as Election Day approaches.

The survey, conducted between October 12 and October 21, included approximately 23,000 Israelis living abroad. Of those surveyed, 79.6 percent said they intended to travel to Israel to vote. The figures reflect the responses of participants in the initiative’s survey and should not be understood as a confirmed count of people who will ultimately arrive.

The organization behind the effort, the American-based AID Coalition, operates an initiative known as Fly&Vote, which helps Israelis overseas identify flights and arrange their return to Israel.

The organization describes itself as nonpartisan and maintains that its purpose is to encourage Israeli citizens to exercise their voting rights, regardless of which political party they support.

Nevertheless, the initiative became the subject of a legal challenge from Netanyahu’s Likud party, which argued that certain forms of assistance provided to overseas voters could violate Israeli election laws.

Likud attorney Ilan Bombach contended that the organization was effectively providing benefits to potential voters through coordinated flight arrangements and related logistical services.

The dispute was heard by Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg, chairman of the Central Elections Committee, on October 6.

Following the hearing, the parties reached a compromise under which Likud withdrew its petition and Fly&Vote agreed to several restrictions on its activities.

Under the agreement, the initiative may not subsidize airfare, provide discounted tickets, arrange free transportation or accommodations, or organize additional flights beyond the six that had already been advertised.

Tickets for those flights must be sold at regular market prices established by the airlines.

The organization also agreed to pay 10,000 shekels toward Likud’s legal expenses.

The settlement allows Fly&Vote to continue providing information about flights, travel documentation, and other logistical matters, provided that its assistance does not constitute a financial benefit to voters.

The organization may also operate informational WhatsApp groups and offer general legal assistance to travelers.

According to information presented during the proceedings, approximately 500 to 600 people were receiving direct assistance through the initiative’s organized flight arrangements, substantially fewer than the tens of thousands estimated to be returning independently.

The distinction is important because the projected 67,000 returning voters are not all passengers on flights organized by Fly&Vote. Most are expected to make their own travel arrangements through commercial airlines.

AID Coalition president Yonatan Bar-Sadeh defended the initiative following the legal proceedings.

“The data clearly show that Israelis living abroad are still Israelis first and foremost – involved and caring, not only in words but also in actions,” he said.

“Fly&Vote will continue working to reduce and remove the obstacles on their way to the ballot box, and to enable every Israeli citizen, woman and man, to exercise their basic right to vote.”

The election-related travel has also generated debate over whether Israelis who have established permanent lives overseas should participate in determining the government that will govern citizens living in Israel.

Supporters of overseas voting argue that Israeli citizenship carries the right to participate in national elections, regardless of where an individual currently resides.

Critics contend that people who live permanently outside Israel do not necessarily bear the same consequences of government decisions concerning military service, taxation, security, and other domestic matters.

The debate became particularly heated after Makor Rishon editor-in-chief Kalman Libeskind questioned whether Israelis who have permanently relocated abroad should return solely to influence the election.

Others rejected that argument, pointing out that Israeli citizens remain legally entitled to vote when physically present in the country, regardless of how long they have lived overseas.

The political implications have added another dimension to the controversy.

Likud officials have expressed concern that many Israelis returning from overseas may support parties seeking to replace Netanyahu.

The Fly&Vote initiative, however, maintains that it does not inquire about travelers’ political preferences and does not endorse any party or candidate.

There is no reliable basis for assuming that every returning voter will support the opposition, and the precise political preferences of those making the journey remain unknown.

Still, the numbers could prove significant in a closely contested election.

The latest estimate of approximately 67,000 returning voters represents a potential voting bloc large enough to affect the allocation of Knesset seats, particularly if the election produces a narrow margin between the competing political camps.

The Jerusalem Post reported that the estimated number of returning voters is roughly equivalent to 1.7 Knesset seats, although the actual electoral impact will depend on how many travelers vote and which parties receive their ballots.

The travel effort has attracted considerable participation from Israelis living in the United States.

Earlier reports indicated that approximately half of those who initially registered interest in returning were based in America, with additional participants residing in Britain, France, Canada, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Australia, and other countries.

Some travelers have reportedly spent thousands of dollars on airfare and accommodations to participate in the election.

Earlier in the campaign, Fly&Vote advertised a direct round-trip flight from New York to Tel Aviv for approximately $1,800, while a round-trip flight from Lisbon was offered for approximately $580.

Those advertised fares illustrate the financial commitment required of voters who must cross international borders to participate.

For some Israelis, the expense has been compounded by the need to take time away from work, arrange childcare, or travel long distances to reach an airport offering flights to Israel.

A previous Fly&Vote survey identified airfare costs as the most frequently cited obstacle to returning, followed by limited flight availability and concerns about the security situation.

The organization’s September survey, which included approximately 17,500 Israelis overseas, found that 72 percent of respondents intended to return for the election and 58 percent reported that they had already purchased tickets or completed their travel arrangements.

The newer survey indicates that the proportion expressing an intention to return has increased.

The legal controversy surrounding the initiative has not prevented Israelis from independently purchasing airline tickets and traveling home to vote.

Nor does the agreement with Likud impose restrictions on the number of Israeli citizens who may enter the country before Election Day.

The dispute concerned the assistance provided by the organization, rather than the voting rights of returning citizens.

For voters arriving in Israel, the remaining requirement is to cast their ballots at the appropriate polling locations on Tuesday.

Israel’s election system does not permit most citizens to vote at an airport simply because they have arrived from overseas. They must generally reach the polling station where they are registered.

Israel’s Shin Bet security agency has uncovered and disrupted a foreign influence operation targeting the country’s upcoming Knesset elections, removing numerous fraudulent social media accounts used to spread misleading information and manipulate political discussions just days before Israelis head to the polls on Tuesday, October 27.

The operation, announced Thursday, October 22, was carried out in cooperation with the Cyber Department of the State Attorney’s Office and the Central Elections Committee. Security officials said the accounts had been identified as part of attempts by foreign actors to interfere with Israel’s electoral process.

The announcement came as a separate investigation by Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies revealed that networks associated with Iran, Russia, and an Islamist organization operating from Turkey have been exploiting divisions within Israeli society in the weeks leading up to the election.

According to the Shin Bet, the accounts identified during the joint operation were removed from social media platforms after investigators determined that they were being used for improper foreign influence activities.

“As part of the joint effort to safeguard the integrity of the elections and thwart attempts at improper foreign influence, these accounts were removed from the internet,” the security agency said.

The Shin Bet emphasized that it would continue working with the relevant government agencies to identify and prevent additional attempts at foreign interference.

Officials did not disclose the precise number of accounts removed, identify the countries responsible for the specific accounts targeted in the operation, or provide details about the messages they had circulated.

However, the broader threat was outlined in a detailed report released Thursday by the Institute for National Security Studies, which examined foreign activity on Israeli social media ahead of the election.

The researchers identified three prominent sources of influence operations: Iranian-linked networks, a Turkey-based Islamist network known as Isnad, and a Russian operation called Doppelgänger.

The report found that these networks have been attempting to deepen existing divisions within Israeli society by inserting provocative material into political discussions, impersonating Israeli citizens, and encouraging ordinary users to circulate their messages.

Among the issues exploited by the foreign networks are the failures surrounding the October 7 massacre, the military draft of chareidi yeshiva students, religious and secular tensions, Israel’s relationship with the United States, and public confidence in the country’s political leadership.

The researchers stressed that the principal objective of many of these operations appears to be undermining public trust rather than securing victory for any particular political party.

Foreign actors, they explained, can benefit from widespread distrust, political instability, and public anger regardless of which party ultimately wins the election.

Iran has been particularly active in attempting to influence Israeli public opinion through social media, having employed similar methods during the 2022 Knesset elections.

According to the report, Iranian-linked accounts have circulated messages appealing to opposing political camps, sometimes promoting contradictory positions on the same issues.

The apparent inconsistency reflects a broader strategy of encouraging confrontation and suspicion among Israelis rather than advancing a single political platform.

The foreign accounts frequently present themselves as ordinary Israeli citizens, using Hebrew names, photographs taken from other sources, or profile pictures generated through artificial intelligence.

Some accounts were created shortly before the election, while others had existed for extended periods before being repurposed for political influence activities.

Investigators discovered one account that had published material in Persian until April 2026 before abruptly beginning to present itself as an Israeli user posting in Hebrew.

Such accounts can be particularly difficult for ordinary social media users to identify because they participate in discussions already taking place among genuine Israeli citizens.

Rather than relying exclusively on their own followers, the operators often post replies beneath messages published by prominent journalists, politicians, and accounts with large audiences.

When Israeli users share those replies or repeat the claims contained in them, the foreign-origin material can spread to much larger audiences without its original source being recognized.

The researchers described this method as a particularly effective way to conceal the involvement of hostile foreign actors.

In some cases, multiple accounts publish nearly identical messages within a short period, creating the appearance that large numbers of people independently share a particular opinion.

One example involving the Isnad network showed seven accounts distributing closely related messages over a two-day period, using language that researchers did not identify in the authentic Israeli discussions they examined.

The report cautioned, however, that coordinated posting is not necessarily evidence of foreign interference, since domestic political organizations also organize social media campaigns.

Investigators therefore examined additional indicators, including account histories, patterns of activity, and connections between suspicious profiles.

The Russian operation identified in the report, known as Doppelgänger, has previously been attributed to Russia by American and European authorities.

According to the cybersecurity and intelligence companies involved in the research, the operation expanded its activity around the Israeli election while simultaneously conducting influence efforts connected to political developments in the United States and France.

The Russian-linked network reportedly operated dozens of accounts that distributed material and more than 1,000 additional accounts that helped amplify it.

One component involved a website designed to resemble a recognizable Israeli news outlet, complete with fabricated Hebrew-language articles.

Researchers determined that the website had been registered in May 2025 and remained available for approximately a year and a half before being used in the period preceding the election.

The material circulated through the Russian-linked network focused heavily on claims that Israel’s relationship with the United States was deteriorating.

Other recurring subjects included the possibility of confrontation with Turkey, economic instability, and Israelis leaving the country.

Unlike some Iranian-linked activity, the Russian operation did not appear to concentrate on specific Israeli parties or candidates.

Instead, researchers concluded that its messaging was directed primarily at weakening confidence in Israel’s relationship with Washington and creating a broader sense of national instability.

The Institute for National Security Studies reported that the accounts it examined as part of the Russian campaign had been suspended by October 19, and its subsequent review did not identify a new wave of Hebrew-language activity from that particular network.

The Turkey-based Isnad network employed a somewhat different approach, concentrating on messages intended to generate pessimism, frustration, and distrust.

Researchers described Isnad as an Islamist volunteer network associated with the Muslim Brotherhood movement, while emphasizing that they had not established that a foreign government directly controlled its activities.

The report also identified a troubling development in which foreign-linked accounts moved beyond online propaganda and attempted to establish direct contact with Israeli citizens.

In several cases, suspicious profiles approached political activists and offered to prepare campaign posters, organize competitions involving prizes, or obtain photographs and videos of their activities.

Other accounts attempted to communicate with journalists through WhatsApp groups.

One profile linked to Iran offered Israeli users “work for good pay,” a tactic resembling recruitment methods previously identified by Israeli security authorities in cases involving suspected Iranian operatives.

The findings are particularly concerning because Israeli authorities have repeatedly warned about attempts by Iranian intelligence agents to recruit Israelis through social media and messaging applications.

Such approaches have included offers of money for seemingly minor assignments, with some cases subsequently developing into requests involving surveillance, photography of sensitive locations, or other activities of intelligence value.

The election-related influence operations therefore raise concerns extending beyond the circulation of misleading political messages.

The researchers warned that foreign networks may also attempt to exploit events on Election Day itself, including technical problems at polling stations, delays in publishing results, or allegations of voting irregularities.

An isolated incident, they noted, could be presented without its original context and circulated widely as supposed evidence of a larger conspiracy.

Accounts that have remained inactive for extended periods could also be activated during or immediately after the election to amplify such claims.

The Institute for National Security Studies emphasized that there is no established evidence that the Iranian, Russian, and Islamist networks are coordinating their activities with one another.

Nevertheless, the groups frequently exploit the same domestic controversies, allowing their messages to reinforce broader feelings of mistrust even when their immediate objectives differ.

The researchers also stressed the importance of distinguishing legitimate political criticism from covert foreign interference.

Israeli citizens are entitled to express sharp disagreements about their government, military policies, religious issues, and political leaders. The security concern arises when foreign operators conceal their identities, impersonate Israelis, and attempt to manipulate those discussions from abroad.

The report further noted that not all material circulated by foreign-linked accounts is necessarily false.

In some cases, the operators distribute accurate information or repeat genuine criticism, relying on the concealed identity of the source and the manner of distribution to influence public opinion.

Separately, Israeli television reported that security authorities have increased preparations for possible disturbances during the election period.

Those preparations include additional security deployments and strengthened command centers in Yehuda and Shomron, where officials are concerned about possible attempts to exploit heightened political tensions.

The IDF has also reportedly restricted leave for combat units until after Election Day as part of its broader security arrangements.

The Shin Bet’s announcement follows increasing cooperation between Israeli authorities and social media companies to identify suspicious accounts and remove content associated with foreign influence operations.

TikTok recently reported that it had removed material violating its policies concerning election integrity, including misleading artificial intelligence content and fake profiles impersonating public officials.

Information concerning Iranian influence campaigns was also shared with Israel’s Central Elections Committee as part of ongoing cooperation between the platform and election authorities.

The latest revelations underscore the growing role of digital platforms in efforts by foreign adversaries to exploit Israel’s domestic political disagreements.

For the Shin Bet and the Central Elections Committee, the immediate priority is preventing covert foreign operations from interfering with Tuesday’s vote.

The Institute for National Security Studies warned that the danger may continue after the ballots are counted, particularly if foreign networks attempt to undermine public acceptance of the results.

Israel’s Supreme Court has handed down a significant ruling just days before Tuesday’s Knesset elections, prohibiting political party representatives stationed at polling locations from electronically collecting voter turnout figures and transmitting them directly to party headquarters. The decision, issued Thursday by a 2–1 majority, overturns an earlier authorization by the Central Elections Committee and could force political parties to revise their Election Day operations at the last minute.

The ruling represents another development in a legal dispute over the information political parties are permitted to obtain from polling stations and how they may use that information to encourage supporters to vote.

For years, Israeli political parties have relied on information gathered by representatives stationed at polling places to determine which supporters have already cast their ballots and which individuals should be contacted before the polls close.

Such information has been especially valuable to parties with extensive voter databases and organized Election Day operations, allowing campaign workers to concentrate their efforts on neighborhoods and communities where turnout appears lower than expected.

Thursday’s ruling restricts the ability of those representatives to provide real-time information to their parties, even when the information consists only of numerical turnout totals rather than the identities of individual voters.

The decision was issued by Supreme Court Justices Khaled Kabub, Ruth Ronnen, and David Mintz. Kabub and Ronnen supported the prohibition, while Mintz dissented.

Because the matter was decided under considerable time pressure ahead of the October 27 election, the court issued its operative ruling without immediately publishing its full legal reasoning. The justices indicated that a detailed explanation would follow.

The latest dispute arose after the Likud party, led by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, sought permission for its representatives at polling stations to electronically count how many people had voted and report those figures to campaign headquarters.

On October 14, Dean Livne, acting director-general of the Central Elections Committee, issued a clarification allowing party representatives to transmit numerical turnout information, provided that the reports did not identify individual voters.

The clarification followed a request submitted by Likud attorney Ilan Bombach, who argued that political parties should be permitted to gather general turnout statistics to assist their efforts to encourage voter participation.

The distinction was significant because the Supreme Court had already ruled in September that polling station representatives could not transmit information identifying individual citizens who had cast ballots.

Under the earlier ruling, parties were barred from using information obtained through official polling station duties to identify voters and report their participation to campaign headquarters.

The court determined that party-appointed representatives, while serving at polling stations, perform official functions connected to the administration of elections and are not authorized to disclose personal voter information for political purposes.

That September decision was unanimous and overturned an earlier Central Elections Committee ruling that had permitted the practice under certain restrictions.

Following that setback, Likud sought to preserve the ability to collect general turnout figures without recording the identities of individual voters.

The party maintained that numerical information presented a different legal question because it did not disclose which particular citizens had voted.

Livne accepted that distinction and authorized the transmission of anonymous turnout totals.

However, the Israel Democracy Guard organization challenged the decision, arguing that polling station personnel should not be permitted to use information obtained through their official responsibilities to assist the political parties that appointed them.

The organization maintained that removing voters’ names from the reports did not resolve the underlying issue of whether election officials could collect and transmit information for partisan purposes.

The petition ultimately reached the Supreme Court, which overturned Livne’s authorization.

The ruling means that party-appointed polling station committee members and observers may not use electronic systems to count voters and provide continuous turnout updates to their respective parties.

It does not prohibit political parties from encouraging citizens to vote or from conducting ordinary campaign activities outside the official responsibilities of polling station personnel.

The distinction is particularly important for parties that have invested heavily in computerized Election Day operations.

In recent election campaigns, Israeli parties have used applications such as Elector to manage voter databases, coordinate campaign workers, and identify supporters who have not yet voted.

These systems have enabled campaign headquarters to compare information received from polling stations with existing voter lists, allowing workers to contact individuals believed to be likely supporters.

Likud has been among the parties making extensive use of such technology, and its representatives argued during the legal proceedings that restrictions imposed shortly before an election could interfere with campaign preparations.

The dispute has also drawn attention to a new Likud election application known as Victory 26.

According to a report concerning the court proceedings, a former Likud campaign official submitted a sworn affidavit alleging that the application contained capabilities that could enable users to monitor activity inside polling stations and collect detailed voter information.

The allegations included claims concerning a feature that could permit covert listening to activity at polling locations.

Those allegations have not been established as findings of fact by the court, but they became part of the broader controversy over the use of electronic technology during the election.

Israel Democracy Guard argued that such capabilities could potentially violate laws governing unauthorized surveillance and undermine the court’s earlier restrictions on the collection of voter information.

Following Thursday’s ruling, the organization welcomed the decision, emphasizing that polling station personnel have responsibilities that must remain separate from the interests of the parties that appointed them.

The organization said polling station officials “perform a public, politically neutral role on election day—and do not serve as an operational arm of political party headquarters.”

It also called on the Central Elections Committee to ensure that the new restrictions are properly communicated and enforced.

“It is now incumbent upon the Central Elections Committee to ensure that the guidelines provided to all personnel at polling stations are clear, uniform, and enforceable,” the organization said.

The legal battle began in August, when Supreme Court Deputy President Noam Sohlberg, who serves as chairman of the Central Elections Committee, moved to prohibit the transmission of identifiable voter information from polling stations to political parties.

Likud challenged that decision, arguing that Sohlberg could not unilaterally impose the restriction and that the issue should be considered by the full Central Elections Committee.

The committee subsequently voted to permit the reporting of individual voter participation under certain limitations.

Those conditions included restrictions on how the information could be used, prohibitions against sharing it with outside parties, and requirements to destroy the collected data after the election.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court overturned that arrangement on September 17, ruling that longstanding practice did not provide sufficient legal authorization for the disclosure of personal voter information.

The justices concluded that the official duties of polling station representatives did not authorize them to transfer information obtained in that capacity to political parties for campaign purposes.

The court also determined that the practice raised concerns under Israel’s privacy laws.

Justice Minister Yariv Levin sharply criticized the September decision, accusing the judiciary of interfering with the election process and changing established procedures shortly before voters were scheduled to go to the polls.

“As far as they are concerned, any means are legitimate to tilt the election results,” Levin said at the time.

He also accused the court of “changing the rules of the game in the middle of the game” and attempting to suppress voter participation.

The court, however, maintained that the absence of explicit legal authorization prevented the Central Elections Committee from permitting the disclosure of such information, regardless of how frequently the practice had been used in previous elections.

The latest ruling extends the restrictions beyond identifiable voter information to include electronic reporting of anonymous turnout totals by party representatives stationed at polling locations.

The decision does not mean that turnout information will be unavailable altogether.

Under an arrangement previously established by Sohlberg, the Central Elections Committee is expected to publish official turnout figures for ordinary polling stations at least four times during Election Day.

Those figures will provide political parties and the public with periodic information about voter participation, although they will not offer the continuous updates that party representatives would have been permitted to transmit under Livne’s October 14 authorization.

The difference could be important for parties attempting to organize their Election Day activities around changing turnout patterns.

With the election approaching Tuesday, political parties will have limited time to adjust their systems and instruct representatives about the information they may collect and transmit.

The ruling applies to all political parties, although the legal proceedings have focused heavily on Likud because of its efforts to preserve the reporting arrangements.

It also comes during an election campaign in which turnout could be especially important for smaller parties seeking to cross the electoral threshold and for larger parties attempting to maximize support in closely contested areas.

The 3.25 percent electoral threshold means that parties receiving fewer votes than the required minimum will not enter the Knesset, making Election Day voter mobilization an important part of campaign operations.

For chareidi parties such as Shas and United Torah Judaism, which traditionally rely on organized community-based efforts to encourage voting, the ruling will also require attention to the restrictions governing representatives stationed inside polling locations.

The court’s decision does not prevent those parties from contacting supporters, arranging transportation to polling stations, or conducting other lawful activities designed to encourage voter participation.

It does, however, prohibit their representatives from electronically gathering turnout figures while performing official polling station duties and immediately forwarding those numbers to campaign headquarters.

A major disagreement has emerged among Israel’s opposition leaders just three days before Tuesday’s Knesset elections, with Gadi Eisenkot exploring the possibility of establishing a minority government even without 61 seats, while Naftali Bennett and Avigdor Liberman insist they will not participate in a coalition dependent on the support of Arab parties.

The dispute could become a significant obstacle to efforts to replace Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, particularly if the election produces another divided Knesset in which neither the current coalition nor the opposition parties secure a clear majority.

According to a report published Saturday, October 24, the opposition parties are already discussing possible arrangements for forming a government after the election. Although they share the objective of replacing Netanyahu, they remain divided over how to accomplish that goal if their combined strength falls short of the 61 seats needed for a majority in the 120-member Knesset.

Eisenkot, chairman of the Yashar party, has raised the possibility of establishing a government supported by only 58 or 59 Knesset members, provided it can obtain enough votes to win an initial confidence vote.

Under Israeli parliamentary rules, a new government does not necessarily need the affirmative support of 61 Knesset members to take office. It must receive more votes in favor than against in the confidence vote, meaning that abstentions or absences could allow a minority government to be approved.

Eisenkot’s proposal would involve establishing such a government and subsequently attempting to expand its parliamentary support by attracting additional lawmakers from parties outside the original coalition.

The plan, however, faces strong opposition from Liberman, chairman of Yisrael Beytenu, who has repeatedly declared that he will not support any government lacking a majority of what he describes as Zionist parties.

Liberman made his position explicit earlier this month, rejecting Eisenkot’s suggestion that a minority government could serve as an interim arrangement until additional coalition partners were secured.

“We will not support any minority government, not even a temporary minority government. We need a Zionist majority government, period,” Liberman declared.

He also ruled out participation in a coalition involving Arab parties or the chareidi parties Shas and United Torah Judaism.

“Our position is clear and unequivocal: We will establish a coalition made up exclusively of Zionist parties. Without Ra’am, without the Joint List, without Shas and without United Torah Judaism,” Liberman said.

The position places Liberman at odds with Eisenkot’s willingness to consider alternative parliamentary arrangements if the opposition fails to win an outright majority.

Bennett and Yair Lapid, who are running together on the B’Yachad list, have also insisted that any government they establish must be based on a Zionist parliamentary majority rather than the votes or abstentions of Arab parties.

Their position creates a substantial challenge for Eisenkot, whose proposal could require at least some cooperation from Arab lawmakers if the Jewish opposition parties secure fewer than 61 seats.

Eisenkot has previously indicated that he would be prepared to pursue the formation of a government even if the opposition wins only 58 or 59 seats.

“If we don’t reach 60, under the circumstances, I will move to swear in a government even with 58 or 59 Knesset members. We will establish that government and immediately try to expand it with additional mainstream Zionist votes,” Eisenkot said in an interview with Kan 11 earlier this month.

At the same time, Eisenkot has maintained that he does not intend to include Arab parties in his coalition and has expressed a preference for establishing a government composed entirely of Zionist factions.

The distinction between formally including Arab parties in a coalition and relying on their votes or abstentions during a confidence vote has become one of the central issues dividing the opposition.

A government could theoretically be approved with fewer than 61 affirmative votes if enough lawmakers abstain, but such an arrangement would leave it vulnerable to future parliamentary challenges.

Eisenkot has not ruled out the possibility of receiving outside parliamentary assistance from Ra’am, led by Mansour Abbas, although no agreement has been announced.

Liberman and Bennett, however, have rejected the idea of establishing a government whose formation would depend on Arab parties, even if those parties remained outside the coalition itself.

Democrats chairman Yair Golan has taken a different position, indicating that he would not automatically reject cooperation with Ra’am.

The disagreement reflects broader divisions among the opposition parties over the composition of a future government, despite their common opposition to Netanyahu.

Liberman has suggested another possible route to forming a majority: persuading Likud Knesset members to break with Netanyahu and join a government led by the opposition.

He has claimed that some Likud lawmakers could be prepared to participate in such an arrangement, although he has not publicly identified any individuals willing to do so.

There have also been no publicly confirmed negotiations with Likud members concerning a possible defection after the election.

Liberman has indicated that he would consider Likud a potential coalition partner if Netanyahu were no longer leading the party.

His proposal would therefore require a significant political realignment within Likud or the broader right-wing bloc, rather than reliance on Arab parliamentary support.

The differences between the opposition leaders have become particularly important because recent election surveys have shown a fragmented political landscape, with the precise distribution of seats varying considerably between polls.

Some surveys have placed the opposition ahead of Netanyahu’s current coalition without giving the Jewish opposition parties enough seats to establish a government independently.

Other surveys have suggested that Netanyahu’s coalition could reach a majority, underscoring the uncertainty surrounding Tuesday’s vote.

The electoral threshold could also play a decisive role in determining the final distribution of Knesset seats.

Under Israeli election law, a party must receive at least 3.25 percent of the national vote to enter the Knesset. Votes cast for parties that fail to cross that threshold do not translate into seats, potentially changing the balance between competing political blocs.

With several smaller parties polling near the threshold, relatively modest shifts in voter support could significantly affect the coalition negotiations that follow the election.

Meanwhile, opposition representatives are discussing another parliamentary initiative that could be pursued even before a new government is formed.

According to today’s reports, there is growing agreement among the parties seeking to replace Netanyahu on an effort to remove Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana, a senior Likud member, from his position.

Unlike the formation of a new government, electing a Knesset speaker does not require a completed coalition agreement.

The opposition could attempt to assemble a parliamentary majority around an agreed candidate for speaker, potentially with the assistance of Arab lawmakers, even if negotiations over forming a government remain unresolved.

Replacing Ohana would give the opposition greater control over the Knesset’s parliamentary agenda, including the scheduling of debates and the advancement of legislative initiatives.

Such a move could also alter the balance of power between the Knesset and Netanyahu’s government if he remains prime minister in a caretaker capacity while coalition negotiations continue.

Several names have reportedly been discussed as possible candidates to replace Ohana.

Among them are Chili Tropper, Matan Kahana, and Elazar Stern of Eisenkot’s Yashar party; Meirav Ben-Ari and Eitan Ginzburg of the Bennett-Lapid alliance; Efrat Rayten of the Democrats; and Oded Forer of Yisrael Beytenu.

No agreement has been announced on a single candidate, and the success of such an effort would depend on the final election results and the willingness of the various parties to cooperate.

The proposal to replace Ohana illustrates how opposition leaders are examining ways to exercise parliamentary influence even if they cannot immediately agree on the composition of a new government.

For Netanyahu, the disagreements among his political opponents could become an important factor in post-election negotiations if the opposition wins more seats than his coalition but remains unable to assemble a governing majority.

The prime minister’s existing coalition includes Likud, Shas, United Torah Judaism, Otzma Yehudit, and Religious Zionism, although the parties have faced disagreements over military conscription legislation and other issues.

The chareidi draft controversy has also become a central point of division between Netanyahu’s coalition and several opposition leaders, particularly Liberman, who has strongly opposed exemptions for yeshiva students.

Eisenkot has likewise excluded the chareidi parties from his preferred coalition framework, citing disagreements over military service and other principles he considers essential to the next government.

Those positions further complicate the parliamentary arithmetic by limiting the number of parties available for potential coalition agreements.

The opposition’s difficulties have drawn comparisons to the political negotiations that followed earlier Israeli elections, when competing party leaders struggled to reconcile ideological differences despite agreeing on the need for a change in government.

In 2021, Bennett and Lapid established a coalition that included Ra’am, marking the first time an independent Arab party formally joined an Israeli governing coalition.

The current opposition leaders, however, are divided over whether any comparable arrangement should be considered following Tuesday’s election.

Tens of thousands of Israelis filled Tel Aviv’s Hostages Square on Motzoei Shabbos, just three days before the country’s Knesset elections, demanding the establishment of an independent state commission of inquiry into the failures that allowed Hamas to carry out its October 7, 2023, massacre. Organizers estimated that more than 100,000 people participated, although police did not provide an official attendance figure.

The massive demonstration, attended by leading opposition politicians, brought together bereaved families, survivors of the Hamas attacks, and former hostages who are demanding a comprehensive investigation into the security, intelligence, and government failures surrounding the deadliest terrorist attack in Israel’s history.

The rally was organized by the October Council, an organization representing families affected by the massacre that has spent years pressing for an independent investigation. Organizers deliberately scheduled the gathering for the final Motzei Shabbos before Tuesday’s election, seeking to make the issue of accountability a central subject of the campaign.

Participants crowded Hostages Square outside the Tel Aviv Museum of Art, with the gathering spilling into surrounding streets. Many carried Israeli flags, while others displayed photographs of relatives murdered during the Hamas attacks or killed while being held captive in Gaza.

The demonstration attracted several of the most prominent figures in Israel’s opposition, including Yashar chairman Gadi Eisenkot, Yisrael Beytenu leader Avigdor Liberman, Democrats chairman Yair Golan, and B’Yachad leaders Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid.

Eisenkot received an enthusiastic reception when he arrived at the square, with sections of the crowd chanting, “Who’s coming? The next prime minister.”

Golan led supporters of his party in a march from Rabin Square to the main gathering at Hostages Square, where speakers repeatedly called for the establishment of a commission with the authority to examine the decisions and failures preceding the October 7 massacre.

The central demand of the demonstration was the creation of a state commission of inquiry, Israel’s highest-level independent investigative body, which would have the power to summon witnesses, obtain documents, examine government and military conduct, and issue findings concerning responsibility for the disaster.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has resisted establishing such a commission under the existing framework, arguing that a panel whose members are selected by the judiciary would be biased against his government.

Opposition leaders and many bereaved families maintain that only an independent state commission can provide a credible accounting of the events leading up to October 7 and the failures that enabled thousands of Hamas terrorists to infiltrate southern Israel.

Among the speakers was Elhanan Danino, whose son Ori was one of six hostages murdered by Hamas terrorists in captivity in August 2024.

Danino accused the government of failing to take the necessary steps to uncover the truth about the massacre, more than three years after the attack.

“A little over three years after that bitter and terrible day on which our sons and daughters, our brothers and sisters, were abducted, massacred, burned, raped and murdered, the leadership has still not made the decision to carry out the most important and necessary thing — an investigation into the truth,” Danino said.

He questioned why successive efforts to establish an official investigation had not produced a commission capable of examining the government’s conduct.

“Whoever evades forming a state commission of inquiry probably has a reason,” he said. “It’s been three years, and they still haven’t found the time to form even a parliamentary or governmental commission of inquiry, probably because there’s something to hide.”

Danino also described the personal anguish that has accompanied him since his son’s abduction, explaining that he has struggled even with the customary Motzei Shabbos greeting of wishing others a good week.

“But I’ll wish us all a week of good news,” he told the crowd, drawing applause.

Another speaker, Mali Zender, whose daughter Noa was murdered by Hamas terrorists at the Nova music festival, spoke about the national implications of the massacre and the responsibility of the government to investigate what happened.

“Tonight I am not standing here just to tell about my personal pain, because the massacre that took place here is not a private tragedy — it is the greatest national disaster in the history of the country,” she said.

Zender urged Israelis to participate in Tuesday’s election, emphasizing that her appeal was not intended as an endorsement of any particular candidate.

“I stand here three days before the most fateful elections of our entire lives here, and I am not asking you to vote for one candidate or another. First and foremost, I am asking you to go out and vote, to do what our children cannot do themselves and vote on their behalf as well — to choose responsibly,” she said.

Eyal Eshel, whose daughter Roni was among the female IDF surveillance soldiers killed at the Nahal Oz military base on October 7, also addressed the demonstrators.

Eshel has been among the bereaved parents demanding answers about the failures that preceded the attack, including the handling of warnings and intelligence concerning Hamas activity along the Gaza border.

“No one has taken responsibility to this day. I want to remind everyone that this was the greatest disaster in the history of the State of Israel,” Eshel said.

He questioned the government’s position that it should determine the mechanism through which its own actions would be investigated.

“How is it possible that those who are required to provide answers want to decide for themselves who will investigate? Is this what accountability looks like? I am a bereaved and broken father, but I am also a father who will never stop fighting for the truth.”

Former hostage Danielle Aloni, who was abducted to Gaza with members of her family and released after 49 days, spoke about the lasting consequences of the attack for the families who endured Hamas captivity.

“On that day, it wasn’t just people who were taken from us. We were also robbed of the basic sense of security that allows us to wake up in the morning, send our children to kindergarten or school, and know they will come home,” Aloni said.

Referring to her daughter Emilia, who was also held hostage, Aloni said the coming election represented an opportunity to shape the future facing the next generation.

“I cannot give [my daughter] Emilia back the childhood that was taken from her, but I can fight for the childhood that still lies ahead of her. In three days, we can start writing a different story for our children.”

Opposition leaders used the gathering to reiterate their commitments to establish an independent investigation if they are able to form the next government.

Golan declared that his party would seek to begin that process immediately following the election.

“Starting this coming Wednesday, we will work to establish a state commission of inquiry that will bring the truth to light and do justice to the families,” Golan said. “This is our duty. This is our mission. We will rehabilitate, build and repair. This is our calling.”

The demonstration also became the subject of a legal dispute in the days leading up to Motzei Shabbos.

Netanyahu’s Likud party submitted a petition to the Central Elections Committee on Thursday seeking to prevent major television networks from broadcasting the gathering, arguing that its proximity to Election Day and the involvement of opposition politicians made it a form of election propaganda.

Justice Noam Sohlberg, chairman of the Central Elections Committee, rejected the petition, determining that the request lacked a sufficient factual foundation to justify the proposed restrictions.

Ahead of the gathering, the October Council also contacted Israel Police Commissioner Danny Levy, warning that individuals allegedly connected to coalition parties might attempt to disrupt the demonstration.

Organizers said they had received information suggesting that provocateurs could attempt to introduce unauthorized signs or flags and create disturbances intended to undermine the rally’s message.

Those allegations were not independently verified, but the organizers requested additional police precautions to prevent disruptions.

The gathering took place amid an intense final stretch of campaigning ahead of Tuesday’s election, with Netanyahu and the opposition parties sharply divided over the government’s handling of the war, the events of October 7, and the question of political accountability.

Several families of October 7 victims have announced plans to stand near polling stations on Election Day holding photographs of their murdered relatives, hoping to keep the memory of the massacre at the forefront of voters’ minds.

{Matzav.com}

[COMMUNICATED]

With neither family able to cover the wedding expenses, HaGaon Rav Moshe Sternbuch shlit”a calls upon Klal Yisroel to help this yasom reach his chuppah.

A chasunah is supposed to be one of the happiest days in a family’s life. For a mother marrying off her son, it’s a moment she has waited years to experience. But for one widow, that long-awaited simcha has become a source of overwhelming worry. Her son is preparing to get married, and she simply doesn’t have the money to make it happen.

There is no father to help shoulder the burden. His mother is struggling to cover even the necessary expenses, and the kallah’s family is not in a financial position to help either. Two young people are ready to begin building their home together, but the financial reality facing their families is making what should be a beautiful new beginning painfully difficult.

This chosson’s situation was brought before HaGaon Rav Moshe Sternbuch shlit”a, who described the opportunity to help him as an exceptional mitzvah and urged Klal Yisroel to contribute. When a gadol of Rav Sternbuch’s stature personally calls attention to the plight of a yasom preparing for his chasunah, it underscores just how much is at stake — and what an extraordinary zechus it is to take part in helping him.

The chosson doesn’t need a lavish wedding. He needs the opportunity to stand beneath his chuppah without the crushing worry of how everything will be paid for. His mother deserves to experience her son’s simcha with some measure of peace, rather than carrying the entire burden alone. We cannot replace the father who won’t be standing beside him. But we can make sure this chosson doesn’t have to face the financial burden of his wedding alone.

Help this yasom reach his chuppah with dignity and simcha.

DONATE HERE: https://thechesedfund.com/kollelinternativvvonalinc

Two Chabad bochurim remain in Israeli military custody following a major enforcement operation at Ben Gurion Airport in which 42 young men were detained over their military draft status, setting off protests and renewed criticism from chareidi representatives over the army’s treatment of yeshiva students.

The arrests, which took place as the bochurim were attempting to travel abroad, have intensified the controversy surrounding the IDF’s enforcement of conscription requirements against members of the chareidi community. While 40 of those detained were subsequently released, two bochurim remained imprisoned because of longstanding outstanding draft violations.

According to information released by the IDF, the two remaining detainees had been classified as draft avoiders for more than 540 days, a distinction military authorities cited in explaining why their cases were being handled differently from those of the other bochurim.

The army reported that the other 40 young men were released after agreeing to begin the enlistment process. That account has become a significant point of controversy, particularly among those concerned about the circumstances under which the agreements were obtained.

The operation has drawn attention because of the unusually large number of Chabad bochurim detained at one location and because the arrests occurred at Israel’s principal international airport, where young men seeking to leave the country have increasingly encountered difficulties over unresolved military draft matters.

The incident comes amid a broader crackdown on chareidi draft avoiders, as military authorities face pressure to enforce enlistment requirements following court rulings and government disputes over the legal status of yeshiva students.

For decades, arrangements governing military service for full-time yeshiva students allowed large numbers of bochurim to continue their Torah studies without being inducted into the IDF. The legal framework surrounding those arrangements has since become the subject of extensive litigation and political confrontation.

The resulting uncertainty has left many young men facing the possibility of detention when they encounter military authorities, particularly at border crossings and airports.

The arrests took place Tuesday morning, October 20, when approximately 80 Chabad bochurim arrived in Eretz Yisroel after spending more than a year learning at the central Tomchei Temimim yeshiva at 770 Eastern Parkway in Crown Heights.

The returning bochurim had participated in the Chabad program known as kevutzah, during which young men from Eretz Yisroel spend an extended period learning in Crown Heights. Many of their families had come to Ben Gurion Airport to welcome them home after approximately 14 months abroad.

Instead, military police officers were waiting at the airport. Authorities had received advance information about the group’s arrival and had deployed additional personnel to carry out the arrests.

Forty-two of the returning bochurim were detained over their unresolved military draft status. Several had their passports confiscated, and the detainees were transported under military supervision to the IDF induction center at Tel Hashomer.

According to reports from the Chabad community, some of the young men were handcuffed as they were taken into custody, prompting anger and distress among relatives who had been waiting to greet them.

Military authorities subsequently divided the detainees into groups based on their willingness to comply with enlistment requirements and the length of time their draft obligations had remained unresolved.

The first group consisted of 27 bochurim who, according to the IDF, expressed willingness to enlist and were found medically fit for military service.

They appeared before a military judge, signed commitments relating to their future enlistment, received suspended sentences, and were permitted to return home.

Another 13 bochurim initially refused to cooperate with the enlistment process. Military authorities sentenced them to imprisonment, and they faced transfer to Military Prison 10.

However, following several hours of intervention by Chabad askonim and further discussions with military officials, those 13 were also released later Tuesday.

According to the IDF’s account, the additional detainees agreed to future enlistment procedures, allowing them to receive suspended sentences rather than remain imprisoned.

Chabad representatives, however, described the circumstances surrounding the commitments as coercive, arguing that the young men had been confronted with the prospect of imprisonment unless they agreed to the army’s demands.

The remaining two bochurim were treated differently because military authorities classified them as having failed to comply with enlistment requirements for more than 540 days.

They were transferred directly to Military Prison 10, where they faced further proceedings over their draft status.

The arrests prompted extensive efforts by Chabad askonim, including attorney Menachem Stauber and R’ Shimon Shisha, who worked to secure the release of the detainees.

The Beis Din Rabbonei Chabad was also involved in the matter and had reportedly been in contact with military authorities even before the bochurim’s flight landed.

Those involved in the intervention sought to prevent the young men from being imprisoned and to address the legal complications arising from their draft classifications.

The developments also raised questions within the Chabad community about the practical implications of the agreements signed by the 40 released bochurim.

Although the military reported that the young men had undertaken to enter the enlistment process, Chabad representatives expressed concern about the pressure exerted on them and the potential consequences for their continued learning.

Israeli media reported that some of those released were also subjected to restrictions, including limitations on their ability to leave the country.

The IDF defended the operation as part of its enforcement of the Defense Service Law, maintaining that individuals who had failed to comply with their military obligations were subject to detention and disciplinary proceedings.

The army stated that it would continue enforcing enlistment requirements in accordance with the law.

The incident has attracted particular attention because the bochurim were detained immediately upon returning from a year of learning abroad, rather than during routine encounters with military authorities inside Israel.

The advance preparations by military police, including the deployment of additional officers and transportation for the detainees, indicated that the operation had been organized before the flight arrived.

The arrests also highlighted the increasing difficulties faced by chareidi bochurim whose draft status remains unresolved, particularly when traveling internationally.

Under earlier arrangements, many Chabad bochurim were able to defer military service while learning in yeshiva, including during extended periods of study abroad.

A 26-year-old Chabad chossid who was attacked with a syringe while conducting mivtzoim in Manhattan’s Diamond District returned to the very same streets less than 24 hours later, determined to continue helping fellow Yidden put on tefillin despite the frightening incident.

The attack, which is being investigated by the NYPD as a possible hate crime, occurred while the young man was engaged in his regular outreach activities in Midtown Manhattan, an area frequented by Jewish businessmen and visitors.

According to reports, the victim was approached by an individual who stabbed him with a syringe. The circumstances surrounding the assault raised immediate concerns that he had been deliberately targeted because of his visibly Jewish appearance and religious activities.

The young man received medical attention following the incident, with the use of a syringe raising additional concerns about possible exposure to infectious substances. The contents of the syringe and whether it posed any further medical danger were not immediately established.

Despite the ordeal, the chossid was back in the Diamond District the following day, resuming his regular rounds and offering Jewish men the opportunity to put on tefillin.

His decision to return so quickly attracted considerable attention within the Chabad community, where mivtzoim, the Rebbe’s campaign to encourage Yidden in the observance of mitzvos, has long been a central part of daily life.

For decades, Chabad chassidim have maintained a regular presence in Manhattan’s commercial districts, visiting offices, stores, and businesses to help Jewish men fulfill the mitzvah of tefillin and strengthen their connection to Yiddishkeit.

The Diamond District, centered around West 47th Street between Fifth and Sixth Avenues, has been a particularly active location for these efforts because of its substantial Jewish business community.

The assault has heightened concerns about the safety of visibly Jewish individuals in New York City, particularly those who regularly conduct religious outreach in public spaces.

Surveillance footage from the area captured the disturbing encounter. The video shows a woman following the chossid along the sidewalk, apparently passing other pedestrians while continuing to pursue him.

At one point, the young man attempted to distance himself from the woman by moving around a parked vehicle. She continued following him, and as he stepped toward the street, he felt a sudden, sharp pain in the lower right side of his back.

The attack occurred shortly before 6 p.m. Wednesday, October 21, near West 47th Street and Fifth Avenue.

The suspect, described by police as a woman believed to be in her 40s, was reportedly speaking Russian and making harassing remarks before the assault. Investigators are examining surveillance footage as they attempt to identify and locate her.

Yosef, who requested that his surname not be published, was treated by Hatzolah and transported to Bellevue Hospital. Doctors determined that he had not suffered internal bleeding and did not require stitches. He was released after approximately three hours.

Although the injury was not considered life-threatening, the nature of the weapon caused particular concern. Investigators believe the attacker may have used a large needle or syringe, but it remains unclear whether the object contained any substance.

The NYPD’s Hate Crimes Task Force is investigating the incident as a possible antisemitic assault. As of the latest reports, the attacker remained at large.

Yosef, a Crown Heights resident who recently received semicha, has spent approximately three years visiting Jewish merchants and employees in Manhattan’s Diamond District, encouraging them to put on tefillin and distributing Shabbos candles.

His father works in the jewelry business and had enlisted his son’s assistance after finding that the demand for these activities had grown beyond what he could handle himself.

Yosef subsequently established a regular schedule, traveling from Brooklyn to Manhattan four days a week to visit stores and businesses throughout the neighborhood.

On Thursday afternoon, less than a day after being stabbed, he returned to West 47th Street and resumed those visits.

Several of the businessmen he encountered recognized him from the widely circulated surveillance footage of the attack.

“They were in shock. They were obviously scared for me,” Yosef told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

He acknowledged that the experience had left him shaken but explained that he had no intention of allowing the incident to prevent him from continuing his work.

“We can’t allow some hate to stop us,” he said.

Yosef added that he believed it was especially important to continue encouraging Yidden to perform mitzvos in the aftermath of the attack.

“We need more mitzvahs in the world, we need more light in the world,” he said.

Speaking separately with Chabad.org, Yosef described the fear and disbelief he experienced following the assault.

“I’m still shaken,” he said. “I never imagined I’d be stabbed simply for being Jewish, right here in New York City.”

He explained that his response was shaped by the example of his grandparents, Holocaust survivors who endured the horrors of Nazi persecution and subsequently rebuilt their lives and established a Jewish family.

“I know what they’d tell me now: Don’t back down. Go back out there and help another Jew put on tefillin. Do another mitzvah. Stand taller and prouder than ever.”

Yosef said that remembering their determination strengthened his resolve to return to the streets where he had been attacked.

“That’s why I came back today,” he continued. “Their answer to hatred was more Jewish life. Mine will be too. We’ll never back down. We’ll just keep spreading more light.”

On Friday, another group of Chabad chassidim established a tefillin stand at the location of the stabbing, giving additional Yidden an opportunity to perform the mitzvah and demonstrating their determination to continue Jewish outreach in the neighborhood.

The incident comes amid heightened concerns over antisemitic violence in New York City. According to NYPD statistics reported this month, anti-Jewish incidents accounted for more than half of the hate crimes recorded in the city during the first nine months of 2026.

Manhattan Shomrim has been assisting police in the investigation and has appealed to members of the public who may have witnessed the assault or possess relevant video footage.

Anyone with information about the incident, including recordings from security cameras, vehicle dashcams, or cellphones, is urged to contact Manhattan Shomrim at 212-430-2024.

A 29-year-old man has been arrested following an alleged attempt to set fire to the Young Israel of West Hempstead on Long Island.

According to Nassau County police, the suspect allegedly ignited a sign outside the Orthodox shul early Thursday morning, October 22, and attempted to push the burning material beneath a door leading into the building. Investigators say he also set fire to a nearby bush before leaving the scene.

The suspect was subsequently taken into custody and charged with arson and criminal mischief in connection with the incident.

The alleged attack targeted a shul serving West Hempstead’s large Orthodox Jewish community, where numerous families regularly gather for davening, Torah learning, and community activities.

Authorities have not publicly established whether the suspect specifically targeted the building because it was a Jewish institution. The incident nevertheless prompted concern among residents over the possibility of an antisemitic motive.

The attempted fire is particularly troubling because of the danger posed by deliberately igniting materials near an entrance to an occupied or potentially occupied building. Even a relatively small fire can spread rapidly if it reaches combustible materials or enters an enclosed space.

Police have identified the suspect as Azzm Khan, a 29-year-old resident of Lakeview, a community neighboring West Hempstead. He was arrested at the scene without incident and subsequently arraigned Thursday in First District Court in Hempstead.

Investigators say the incident began at approximately 11:30 p.m. Wednesday, when a witness spotted a man damaging the side mirror of a Nassau County Police Department auxiliary vehicle parked near Hall’s Pond Park on Hempstead Avenue. The witness contacted 911, prompting officers to search the surrounding area.

While police were looking for the individual responsible, another person approached the officers and reported seeing someone starting a fire nearby.

Officers proceeded to the Young Israel of West Hempstead, located at 630 Hempstead Avenue, where they encountered Khan and discovered a bush burning outside the building.

According to investigators, Khan had removed a lawn sign from the surrounding neighborhood, set it ablaze, and attempted to slide the burning material beneath the shul’s entrance door. When that effort failed, he allegedly placed the flaming sign into nearby shrubbery, causing the bush to catch fire.

Police say Khan then returned to the entrance and repeatedly kicked the door, damaging it.

In a message distributed to members of the shul, its security committee provided additional details about the incident, reporting that the suspect had initially attempted to force his way into the building by striking the glass entrance with a bat.

The reinforced glass held, preventing him from gaining entry.

The shul’s statement also indicated that the fire went out without spreading into the building, b’chasdei Hashem.

No injuries were reported, and the building did not sustain the extensive fire damage that could have resulted had the flames reached its interior.

Khan was charged with third-degree arson, fifth-degree arson, and two counts of third-degree criminal mischief. According to a report in Newsday, he pleaded not guilty at his arraignment before Judge Maria Boultadakis, who set bail at $500,000.

Authorities also linked Khan to the earlier damage to the police auxiliary vehicle, which had initially brought officers into the area.

Yisroel Szpigiel, first vice president of Young Israel of West Hempstead, expressed concern over the incident, telling News 12 that while the neighborhood has experienced minor vandalism in previous years, nothing comparable had occurred.

“There’s no place for hate in our town. Nobody should have to endure something like this,” Szpigiel said. “Whether it’s our shul or any of the churches or any of the organizations in the neighborhood. We’ll have to be here to protect each other.”

Nassau County Legislator Olena Nicks also condemned the incident and expressed solidarity with the congregation.

“An attack on any place where our neighbors gather to pray is an attack on the whole of our community, and I condemn it without reservation,” Nicks said.

She praised the response by Nassau County police and said law enforcement agencies were working together to protect the congregation and surrounding neighborhood.

“To the rabbi, the leadership, and every member of Young Israel: You are not alone,” Nicks said. “West Hempstead is a community that looks out for one another, and the people of the Fifth District stand with you.”

Following the incident, the shul’s security committee began coordinating with the Nassau County Police Department and the Department of Homeland Security to review existing security arrangements and determine whether additional precautions are necessary.

The committee also received surveillance footage of the incident, which was provided to investigators.

Community members were urged to remain vigilant, immediately report suspicious activity to police and the shul’s security personnel, and avoid confronting suspicious individuals themselves.

Local officials indicated that police patrols in the area would be increased ahead of religious services.

The investigation remains ongoing, and authorities have not publicly established a motive for the alleged attack. Although the circumstances have raised concerns about possible antisemitism, the police department’s initial announcement did not identify the incident as a hate crime.

Police said there were no known continuing threats to the community following Khan’s arrest.

The incident has nevertheless heightened security concerns in West Hempstead, a community with a substantial Orthodox Jewish population and numerous shuls, yeshivos, and other Jewish institutions.

For members of Young Israel, the fact that the suspect was unable to enter the building and that the fire did not spread beyond the immediate area was a source of considerable relief.

The congregation expressed appreciation to the Nassau County Police Department for its response and thanked community members for their concern and support.

Anyone with information about the incident is being asked to contact the Nassau County Police Department’s Fifth Precinct at 516-849-0266 or its Hate and Bias Hotline at 516-500-0657.