The Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee is set to enter a high-stakes phase today as its chairman, MK Boaz Bismuth, prepares to present the latest draft of the controversial draft law and announce an intensive series of committee deliberations aimed at pushing the legislation toward final approval.
Once the text is publicly released, lawmakers and the broader public will see, for the first time, the complete and updated version of the proposed law regulating the status of yeshiva students. Coalition officials hope that the upcoming discussions will produce enough agreement on changes to move the bill forward to its second and third readings in the Knesset plenum.
Bismuth is expected to launch a marathon of debates in the committee, a move reflecting pressure from Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Shas chairman Aryeh Deri, both of whom believe the coalition can ultimately secure a majority for the legislation.
However, in a direct challenge to Netanyahu’s demands, the heads of the chareidi parties have refused to commit to supporting the bill before committee deliberations conclude and the final text is reviewed by the gedolei Yisroel. Their hesitation has sharpened political concerns inside the coalition.
Knesset sources say that the sudden acceleration of the legislative timetable is driven partly by a looming deadline: in just over two weeks, six months will have passed since the last bill to dissolve the Knesset was voted down. Once that window closes, the opposition will once again be able to submit a new dissolution bill — raising fears in Netanyahu’s circle that the chareidi parties might use the opportunity to back early elections if they feel cornered over the draft law.
A senior chareidi figure involved in the negotiations said this week that the chances of the bill surviving the full legislative process are low. “The law — with high probability — will not pass second and third readings, and if it does, it will not withstand scrutiny in the High Court,” he said. He added that the version crafted by MK Yaakov Asher Atias was designed largely to demonstrate to rabbinic leaders that genuine efforts were made to regulate the issue — perhaps paving the way for the chareidi parties to re-enter the government even without actual legislation.
The same official warned that the committee discussions could still take a dramatic turn. One example he cited was the legal adviser’s demand to raise the first-year enlistment quota to 7,500 chareidim — a move that would require an additional 1,500 recruits in the first year alone.
Earlier this week, as reported by Matzav.com, Deri told Shas MKs that the committee is expected to begin debating the final language “in the coming days.” But he reiterated that Shas would not commit to supporting the legislation until the Moetzet Chachmei Hatorah reviews the final draft. Only after that ruling, he said, will Shas decide how to vote.
Deri nevertheless expressed optimism, insisting that if the gedolim approve the bill, the coalition will have enough votes to pass it, despite several coalition MKs already declaring they will oppose it. “It’s possible that in the near future, we’ll already be past all of this,” Deri added.
Meanwhile, Religious Zionism leader Betzalel Smotrich continued to press for a more substantive overhaul. He said: “Only a law that creates a real process where the chareidi public participates in the great mitzvah of defending the security of Israel and its eternity. That is essential. The situation cannot remain as it is.” He added, “Anyone who thinks I’ll be a rubber stamp doesn’t understand anything. In my worldview, there is no exemption from this mitzvah.”
Smotrich insisted on a genuine, rapid process that would draft “thousands of chareidim every year into the Israel Defense Forces, into combat service, into positions where they are needed.”
In contrast, Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi argued that opposing the draft law is itself a security threat. “Anyone who opposes the draft law is harming the security of the state and harming the army,” he said, adding that political objections over the past two years — including by former officials — prevented the law from advancing before the war. Passing the bill, he insisted, would unquestionably lead to an increase in chareidi enlistment.
Karhi accused opposition leaders Avigdor Liberman and Yair Lapid of exploiting the issue for political gain. “They want the chareidim drafted for their election campaign,” he said. “If the chareidim pass a law by consensus, what will they sell to their voters? All they will have left is incitement against the chareidi public.”
The coming weeks in the committee are expected to determine not only the fate of the draft law, but potentially the fate of the coalition itself.
{Matzav.com}US officials have now acknowledged that the man accused of shooting two National Guard members near the White House had previously been part of American-supported counterterror units during the Afghanistan war. The CIA confirmed that Rahmanullah Lakanwal, 29, served with forces aligned with the agency before the collapse of Kabul.
Authorities say Lakanwal entered the United States in September 2021 through Operation Allies Welcome, the emergency entry track created for Afghans who worked alongside American personnel and were swept up in the frantic evacuation. His background with US-connected security units was not publicly known until Wednesday night, when CIA director John Ratcliffe addressed the matter.
According to The New York Times, Lakanwal was attached to multiple American agencies during the war, including a CIA-supported group operating out of Kandahar — a region that long served as a key base of Taliban activity. Ratcliffe, speaking to Fox News Digital, said: “The Biden administration justified bringing the alleged shooter to the United States in September 2021 due to his prior work with the US government, including CIA,” noting that Lakanwal’s role was “as a member of a partner force in Kandahar, which ended shortly following the chaotic evacuation”.
In the wake of the attack, US Citizenship and Immigration Services announced a sweeping pause affecting Afghan nationals seeking immigration benefits. The agency stated on its social platforms: “Effective immediately, processing of all immigration requests relating to Afghan nationals is stopped indefinitely pending further review of security and vetting protocols.”
As Washington reeled from the incident, President Trump ordered hundreds of additional Guard members into the capital. He characterized the shooting as an “act of terror” and warned that immigration represents “the single greatest national security threat facing our nation.”
{Matzav.com}
Moshe Indig, prominent Satmar askan from Williamsburg, mounted a full-throated defense of his endorsement of Zohran Mamdani in an interview with Mishpacha Magazine this week, addressing mounting criticism over his decision to back a politician whose statements about Israel and his associations have alarmed much of the Jewish community.
Mr. Indig, who has been involved in political advocacy for more than twenty-five years, described how his relationship with Mamdani began long before the primary. A Jewish staffer who had previously worked for Assemblywoman Emily Gallagher and later became Mamdani’s aide asked for a meeting months before the race tightened. Indig said he agreed, as his policy is to meet “almost anyone who requests it.” Mamdani, then considered a longshot, came to the JCC in Williamsburg.
Indig recalled confronting the candidate directly about concerns within the community. “I said to him, ‘The perception is that you are an anti-Semite. So I want to ask you straight out, are you an anti-Semite?'” According to Indig, Mamdani responded: “No, I’m not an anti-Semite. I just don’t like what Israel is doing in Gaza.”
Indig said he pressed further, challenging what he perceived as a double standard.
“Do you like what Russia is doing in Ukraine?” he asked.
“No, of course not,” Mamdani answered.
“So how come no one hears about that?” Indig said he countered.
Mamdani, he said, claimed the distinction was based on U.S. taxpayer dollars going to Israel, not Russia. While Indig said he found that rationale “untenable,” he emphasized that he was not attempting to debate foreign policy. The focus, he said, was determining whether Mamdani’s worldview left room for cooperation. He described their first conversation as “like a good first date.”
Despite the candidate’s record, Indig insisted he believed Mamdani had approached the community sincerely. “He didn’t have anything to gain by convincing me that he was not an anti-Semite, and neither did I,” Indig said. “He was going to win without a single vote from our community — he knew it and so did I.”
He added that Mamdani consistently returned for follow-up meetings, “repeatedly working diligently to build a rapport.”
“I’ve been doing this for twenty-five years, and I know there was really no reason for him to pursue a relationship with us unless he meant it,” he said.
The interview touched on the uproar following Mamdani’s lukewarm condemnation of a protest outside Park East Synagogue, where demonstrators shouted “Death to the IDF” and “Globalize the intifada,” while Mamdani simultaneously criticized a Nefesh B’Nefesh event inside the shul. Indig dismissed the reaction to Mamdani’s statement as an example of inexperience rather than malice. “He’s still young and fresh… he’s going to make some mistakes,” Indig said. “He is a pretty smart man and will learn quickly what to say, how to say it, and mostly what not to say.”
Indig also argued that the significant flaw in that incident was the police response, not Mamdani’s. “The real problem at that demonstration was the weak police response, which he doesn’t have any control over until January 1st,” he said.
When asked whether he personally believes Mamdani is an anti-Semite, Indig offered a notably blunt answer. “Not any more than any other politician in New York, no more than Cuomo or anyone else,” he said. “The truth is that it is irrelevant. I only need to be able to work with people, I don’t have to trust them.”
He insisted that securing pre-election commitments gave him leverage afterward. “Getting guarantees from him before the election gives me critical leverage afterward — if he fails to be a friend, I can call him on his promise,” he said.
Indig dismissed speculation that Satmar’s anti-Zionist stance influenced the endorsement. “I’m don’t involve myself in foreign affairs and international politics,” he said. “I’m only interested locally, here in New York, in what is in the best interest of our community now.”
He cited the position of the Divrei Yoel regarding anti-Zionism as a possible cover for anti-Semitism, but argued that a Muslim politician identifying with Palestinians might be motivated by personal ties rather than hatred of Jews. “To us, that’s unacceptable sympathy for terrorists and murderers, perversion of truth and justice. But his personal ties could at least justify a perspective that bifurcates Israel and the Jews of New York,” he said.
Indig said that the fears that Mamdani’s rhetoric would trigger violence were exaggerated. “Most of the response inspired by his rhetoric is confined to anti-Semitic symbolism, chanting, and rallying… If we stop making a big deal out of it, many of them will lose interest and move on,” he said.
According to Indig, he refused to endorse Mamdani while Eric Adams remained in the race, citing loyalty. But after Adams withdrew, Mamdani pursued the endorsement repeatedly. “I didn’t promise him votes,” Indig said, explaining that most Satmar voters were convinced Mamdani was a danger. Mamdani, he said, brushed that off.
“‘I don’t need your votes,’ he said. ‘I have the votes. I’ll win anyway, with you or without you, but I want to win with you. I just want your endorsement because I want to prove that I’m not an anti-Semite.’”
Indig said he viewed that as “a beautiful invitation to our community.”
He said Mamdani promised access, an open door, and sensitivity to Satmar’s concerns, especially on education. Indig also pointed out that Mamdani had supported a yeshiva-friendly education bill as an assemblyman and vowed to retain Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch.
Indig added that he and Rabbi Hoffman were “the only two Jews invited to his victory party” and were taken backstage during the celebration of 3,000 attendees.
“He greeted us, promised he would not forget, and that we had access at all times,” he said.
The decision to bring Mamdani into Indig’s sukkah — one of the most heavily criticized moments — was also defended.
“Politicians always come visit askanim in the sukkah… It’s meant to be a sign of respect to the community,” Indig said. He called the backlash “nonsense” and “part of the propaganda campaign against him.”
He said that the Satmar Rebbe, Rav Aharon Teitelbaum, was fully informed of the situation and approved the plan.
“He said, ‘Go ahead,’” Indig stated.
But the blowback from across the Jewish community has been intense. “I’m taking missiles over this, not just bullets,” Indig said.
He claimed wealthy critics and major developers — many of whom, he said, helped create the voter base that elected Mamdani by building luxury housing that priced out families — called him to complain. Others accused him of having personal motives, a charge he rejected with anger. “If he turns out to be an anti-Semite, who is going to have to deal with him? Me! Not them!” he said.
Some even called him a “kapo.”
“Anyone who knows what a kapo is can see that I am the exact opposite — a kapo beat you up to save himself. I’m taking beatings to save you,” he said.
Despite the backlash, Indig insisted that the endorsement was the correct strategic choice, emphasizing political necessity and long-term access. “To be a real and responsible leader, you need to make correct decisions that are in the best interest of the community, even when they are difficult and unpopular,” he said.
He claimed that many who initially attacked him have since privately conceded that he may have been right. “People are already telling us we were right, that it was chacham haroeh es hanolad,” Indig said. “We are currently the only Yidden with access to the future City Hall, but I hope that changes.”
{Matzav.com}
In a new and deeply troubling escalation, a fringe group of self-styled kanna’im launched a wave of robo-calls and hotline messages overnight maligning the Slabodka roshei yeshiva, Maran Hagaon Rav Dov Landau and Maran Hagaon Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch, in an unprecedented bizayon haTorah.
The attacks were timed precisely as Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch arrived in the United States on behalf of the Slabodka Yeshiva.
One of the messages, dripping with disrespect, referred to the venerated rosh yeshiva simply as “the hanhala of Yeshiva Slabodka in Bnei Brak.”
This latest barrage follows a pattern of harassment in which this small faction has repeatedly defamed gedolei Yisroel, questioned their leadership, and spread incendiary falsehoods regarding the developing draft legislation in Israel, including the latest claim that the Slabodka roshei yeshiva have endorsed a law drafting 50% of bnei yeshiva.
One hotline broadcast the following message:
“Urgent message regarding the Slabodka roshei yeshiva agreeing to draft 50% of all bochurim in Eretz Yisroel. The hanhalah of Yeshivas Slabodka Bnei Brak is coming to fundraise in America. In Eretz Yisroel, a law is being passed to draft 50% of bochurim. It is being supported by the leaders of Yeshivas Slabodka.”
The message continued with inflammatory rhetoric: “Because of the Slabodka roshei yeshiva’s support for the law, 50% of all yeshiva bochurim in Eretz Yisroel are about to be sent to kill, die, and get shmadded by atheist commanders and female soldiers. Rabbi Yitzchok Kalmanovich said that the Slabodka roshei yeshivas are making a churban. Please, spread the word.”
A separate recording added: “The following is an important message regarding the ‘Slabodka chok hagiyus.’ As the hanhalah of Yeshivas Slabodka Bnei Brak travels to America to fundraise, back in Eretz Yisroel, unsavory politicians are pushing through a military draft law against yeshiva bochurim, all in the name of Yeshivas Slabodka and its leaders. It is urgent that the word gets through to the hanhalas hayeshiva about what is happening behind their backs while they are abroad. 50% of all yeshiva bochurim are now on the chopping block. Please, spread the word.”
LISTEN:
For months, these kannaim have hurled accusations at gedolei hador, spread misinformation, and aggressively attacked the leaders of the Torah world. Many are afraid to confront them; others simply hope they will fade away. But the lack of pushback has emboldened them further, until now they speak openly against the gedolei hador. Silence has allowed these individuals to operate freely and to sow confusion at will.
{Matzav.com}
President Donald Trump has argued with the architect he handpicked to design a White House ballroom over the size of the project, reflecting a conflict between architectural norms and Trump’s grandiose aesthetic, according to four people who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal conversations.
Trump’s desire to go big with the project has put him at odds with architect James McCrery II, the people said, who has counseled restraint over concerns the planned 90,000-square-foot addition could dwarf the 55,000-square-foot mansion in violation of a general architectural rule: don’t build an addition that overshadows the main building.
A White House official acknowledged the two have disagreed but would not say why or elaborate on the tensions, characterizing Trump and McCrery’s conversations about the ballroom as “constructive dialogue.”
“As with any building, there is a conversation between the principal and the architect,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. “All parties are excited to execute on the president’s vision on what will be the greatest addition to the White House since the Oval Office.”
McCrery declined an interview request through a representative who declined to answer questions about the architect’s interactions with Trump in recent weeks.
Trump’s intense focus on the project and insistence on realizing his vision over the objections of his own hire, historic preservationists and others concerned by a lack of public input in the project reflect his singular belief in himself as a tastemaker and obsessive attention to details. In the first 10 months of his second term, Trump has waged a campaign to remake the White House in his gilded aesthetic and done so unilaterally – using a who’s-going-to-stop-me ethos he honed for decades as a developer.
Multiple administration officials have acknowledged that Trump has at times veered into micromanagement of the ballroom project, holding frequent meetings about its design and materials. A model of the ballroom has also become a regular fixture in the Oval Office.
The renovation represents one of the largest changes to the White House in its 233-year history, and has yet to undergo any formal public review. The administration has not publicly provided key details about the building, such as its planned height. The 90,000-square-foot structure also is expected to host a suite of offices previously located in the East Wing. The White House has also declined to specify its plans for an emergency bunker that was located below the East Wing, citing matters of national security.
On recent weekdays, a bustling project site that is almost entirely fenced off from public view contained dozens of workers and materials ready to be installed, including reinforced concrete pipes and an array of cranes, drills, pile drivers and other heavy machinery, photos obtained by The Washington Post show.
Plans for the addition as of Tuesday had not been submitted to the National Capital Planning Commission, a 12-member board charged by Congress with overseeing federal construction projects and now led by Trump allies. A preliminary agenda for the commission’s next meeting, scheduled for Dec. 4, does not include the ballroom project under projects expected to be covered at the meeting or reviewed by the body in the next six months. White House officials say that the administration still plans to submit its ballroom plans to the commission at “the appropriate time.”
The administration’s rapid demolition of the East Wing annex and solicitations from companies and individuals to fund the new construction have caused controversy over the project, which Trump believes the White House needs to host special events. Democrats, historical preservation groups and some architects have criticized the project’s pace, secrecy and shifting specifications. The White House initially said this summer that the ballroom would cost $200 million and fit 650 people, while Trump in recent weeks asserted that it could cost $300 million or more and would fit about 1,000 people.
McCrery has kept his criticism out of the public eye, quietly working to deliver as Trump demanded rushed revisions to his plans, according to two of the people with knowledge of the conversations. The president – a longtime real estate executive who prides himself on his expertise – has repeatedly drilled into the details of the project in their Oval Office meetings, the people said.
McCrery has wanted to remain with the project, worried that another architect would design an inferior building, according to a person with knowledge of his thinking.
McCrery, a classical architect and the founder and principal of McCrery Architects, had designed works like the U.S. Supreme Court bookstore and the pedestal for President Ronald Reagan’s statue in the U.S. Capitol. The ballroom was the largest-ever project for his firm, which has specialized in designing churches, libraries and homes.
Trump hired McCrery for the project on July 13. Eighteen days later, the White House announced the ballroom project, with officials promising to start construction within two months and finish before the end of Trump’s second term.
Trump also appointed McCrery in 2019 to serve a four-year term on the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, which provides advice to the president, Congress and local government officials on design matters related to construction projects in the capital region.
Democrats have pressed the White House and its donors for more details on the planned construction and what was promised to financial contributors. The ballroom is being funded by wealthy individuals and large companies that have contracts with the federal government, including Amazon, Lockheed Martin and Palantir Technologies.
Several donors have cast the decision in statements as an investment in the future of a building that belongs to the American people, pushing back on the suggestion that their largesse was intended to curry favor with Trump.
A donor list released by the White House of 37 businesses and individuals who underwrote the ballroom is not comprehensive, administration officials acknowledged, leaving open the possibility that millions of dollars have been funneled toward the president’s pet project with no oversight.
“Billionaires and giant corporations with business in front of this administration are lining up to dump millions into Trump’s new ballroom – and Trump is showing them where to sign on the dotted line,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) said in a statement last week. Warren and her colleagues also introduced legislation that would impose restrictions on White House construction and require more transparency from donors.
(c) 2025 , The Washington Post · Jonathan Edwards, Dan Diamond
