Feed aggregator

Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna has been projected to win reelection in Florida’s 13th Congressional District, securing another term in the U.S. House of Representatives and delivering an important victory for Republicans as the party battles to maintain control of Congress in Tuesday’s midterm elections.

Decision Desk HQ projected Luna as the winner shortly after polls closed Tuesday evening, allowing the Republican incumbent to retain her seat representing the Tampa Bay region.

Luna defeated Democratic challenger Leela Gray, who won her party’s nomination in August after receiving approximately 65% of the vote in a three-way primary. Independent candidate Tony D’Arrigo also appeared on the general election ballot.

The victory gives Luna, a prominent supporter of President Donald Trump and a member of the House Freedom Caucus, a third consecutive term in Congress. She was first elected in 2022, when she flipped a previously Democratic-held seat, and won reelection in 2024.

Luna, an Air Force veteran, has established herself as an outspoken conservative voice in Washington, particularly on immigration enforcement, government spending, congressional oversight, and support for Trump’s political agenda.

Her district, which includes portions of Pinellas County in the Tampa Bay area, has become increasingly favorable to Republicans in recent election cycles. Trump carried the district by approximately 13 percentage points in the 2024 presidential election, while Luna defeated Democratic challenger Whitney Fox that year by roughly nine points.

Despite the district’s Republican lean, Democrats had hoped that a favorable national political environment could make the race competitive. The Cook Political Report classified the contest as leaning Republican rather than safely Republican, reflecting the possibility of a closer race.

Gray campaigned as an alternative to Luna’s conservative approach, seeking to attract voters dissatisfied with Republican policies and the direction of the federal government.

Luna’s victory comes as both parties closely monitor congressional races across the country, with control of the House potentially hinging on relatively small numbers of competitive districts.

For Republicans, retaining seats such as Florida’s 13th District is an important part of their strategy to preserve their congressional majority and maintain support for President Trump’s legislative priorities during the final two years of his term.

Luna will begin her third term in January 2027, continuing her role as one of the more outspoken members of the House Republican conference.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker is projected to win a third consecutive term, extending Democratic control of the governor’s office in one of the nation’s most reliably Democratic states and strengthening his position as a potential contender for the party’s 2028 presidential nomination.

Pritzker, a billionaire businessman who first took office in January 2019, entered Tuesday’s election as a strong favorite after building a substantial fundraising advantage and maintaining a prominent national profile as one of President Donald Trump’s most outspoken Democratic critics.

The projected victory gives Pritzker another four years to pursue his agenda in Springfield, including education spending, economic development, healthcare initiatives, and efforts to expand access to state services.

Pritzker was first elected governor in 2018, defeating Republican incumbent Bruce Rauner, and secured a second term in 2022 against Republican state Sen. Darren Bailey.

His latest victory would make him the first Illinois governor since Republican Jim Thompson to win three consecutive elected terms.

Before entering politics, Pritzker was known for his business investments and philanthropy. A member of the family associated with the Hyatt hotel chain, he has used considerable personal wealth to finance his political campaigns.

Tuesday’s race was a rematch between Pritzker and Republican Darren Bailey, a former state senator and conservative farmer from southern Illinois. Bailey had challenged Pritzker in 2022 but lost by a double-digit margin. This year, he again campaigned on reducing taxes, limiting government spending, strengthening public safety, and opposing the governor’s policies on immigration and other issues.

Bailey received President Trump’s endorsement but faced an uphill battle in a state where Democrats maintain strong electoral advantages, particularly in Chicago and its surrounding suburbs. The Associated Press called the race for Pritzker within minutes of polls closing Tuesday evening.

Pritzker’s reelection carries historical significance. He becomes the first Democrat to win three terms as Illinois governor and the first governor of either party to accomplish the feat since Republican Jim Thompson, who served from 1977 to 1991.

The victory also comes as Pritzker continues to build his national political profile. He has become a leading Democratic voice against Trump and has frequently traveled outside Illinois to support Democratic candidates and causes.

Political observers have increasingly mentioned Pritzker as a possible presidential candidate in 2028, particularly as Democrats consider which governors and other national figures could lead the party in the next presidential election.

Pritzker has not formally announced any presidential ambitions, but his fundraising resources, national visibility, and record of winning statewide elections have made him a prominent figure in those discussions.

His reelection also ensures that Democrats will retain the Illinois governor’s office as the party seeks to preserve its control of state government. Democrats entered the election holding majorities in both chambers of the Illinois legislature, giving Pritzker substantial legislative support for his agenda.

The governor will begin his third term in January 2027, with attention likely to focus not only on his plans for Illinois but also on whether his growing national prominence eventually leads him to pursue the White House.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro has won reelection to a second four-year term, defeating Republican state Treasurer Stacy Garrity in a decisive victory that strengthens his standing as a potential Democratic presidential contender in 2028.

The Associated Press projected Shapiro as the winner at 8:01 p.m. Tuesday, just one minute after polls closed across Pennsylvania, reflecting the overwhelming advantage the Democratic incumbent carried into Election Day.

Shapiro, 53, secured another term in one of the nation’s most politically important battleground states, which President Donald Trump carried in the 2024 presidential election. His victory represents a significant success for Pennsylvania Democrats as they seek to expand their influence in state government and congressional races.

The governor, who was first elected in 2022, campaigned on his administration’s record of increasing education funding, supporting law enforcement, attracting businesses, and creating jobs. He also emphasized his efforts to work across party lines in a state where Republicans have controlled the Senate throughout his tenure.

Shapiro’s running mate, Lt. Gov. Austin Davis, was also reelected and will serve another four-year term.

Garrity, 62, a U.S. Army veteran who has served as Pennsylvania’s treasurer since 2021, sought to make the election a referendum on Shapiro’s handling of the state’s economy, taxes, energy policies, and government spending.

The Republican challenger, who received President Trump’s endorsement in January, argued that Pennsylvania needed new leadership to address rising costs and expand economic opportunities. She promised to encourage energy production, reduce taxes, and pursue policies intended to create additional jobs.

Despite receiving strong support from Republican leaders, Garrity struggled to gain traction against Shapiro, who maintained a substantial advantage in fundraising and public opinion surveys throughout the campaign.

Shapiro entered Election Day with a commanding lead in most polls. The RealClearPolitics polling average showed him ahead by approximately 26 percentage points during October, making the contest one of the least competitive major gubernatorial races of the 2026 election cycle.

The governor’s reelection comes four years after he defeated Republican Doug Mastriano by nearly 15 percentage points in 2022, establishing himself as one of the Democratic Party’s strongest statewide candidates.

Shapiro previously served as Pennsylvania’s attorney general from 2017 until 2023 and gained national recognition for his handling of major legal and political controversies.

During his first term as governor, he attracted widespread attention for overseeing the rapid reconstruction of a collapsed section of Interstate 95 in Philadelphia in 2023, an episode that became a centerpiece of his political messaging about effective government.

Shapiro has also emerged as an outspoken critic of President Trump, repeatedly challenging administration policies through public statements and legal action.

His political profile rose considerably during the 2024 presidential campaign, when then-Vice President Kamala Harris considered him as a potential running mate before ultimately selecting Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.

Since then, Shapiro has frequently appeared on lists of possible Democratic presidential candidates for 2028. His ability to win comfortably in Pennsylvania, a state considered essential to either party’s presidential ambitions, is expected to strengthen his national political prospects.

The governor has maintained that his immediate priority is serving Pennsylvania, although he has declined to definitively rule out a future presidential campaign.

Beyond his own reelection, Shapiro has invested considerable political and financial resources in helping Democratic candidates competing for congressional and state legislative seats.

His campaign directed approximately $10 million toward efforts to flip four Republican-held congressional districts and help Democrats gain full control of Pennsylvania’s state government for the first time since 1993.

Democrats entered Election Day controlling the state House by a narrow margin, while Republicans held the state Senate. A Democratic takeover of both chambers would give Shapiro considerably greater freedom to pursue his legislative agenda during his second term.

Among the governor’s priorities are increasing Pennsylvania’s minimum wage, expanding education investments, and advancing additional measures supported by Democratic lawmakers.

While Shapiro’s own victory was projected almost immediately after polls closed, the outcomes of several closely contested congressional and legislative races remained unresolved Tuesday evening, leaving the broader political consequences of Pennsylvania’s election still to be determined.

Democratic Sen. Cory Booker has won reelection in New Jersey, easily defeating Republican challenger Justin Murphy and securing another six-year term in the U.S. Senate, according to projections by the Associated Press and NBC News.

The victory allows Booker, 57, to retain a seat that Democrats have controlled for decades and delivers an important hold for the party as it battles Republicans for control of the Senate in Tuesday’s midterm elections.

Booker entered Election Day as the overwhelming favorite against Murphy, an attorney, U.S. Navy veteran, and former local official from Tabernacle Township in Burlington County. Major election analysts had consistently classified the contest as safely Democratic.

NBC News projected Booker as the winner shortly after polls closed at 8 p.m., with early returns showing him holding a commanding lead. The Associated Press also called the race for the Democratic incumbent.

Booker has represented New Jersey in the Senate since 2013, when he won a special election following the death of longtime Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg. He subsequently won full six-year terms in 2014 and 2020 and will now begin his third full term in January.

Before entering the Senate, Booker served as mayor of Newark from 2006 until 2013. He later sought the Democratic presidential nomination in the 2020 election cycle and has remained a prominent national figure within his party.

Throughout his reelection campaign, Booker emphasized economic concerns, including the rising cost of living, tax relief for working families, and healthcare affordability. He promoted a proposal known as the Keep Your Pay Act, which would eliminate federal income taxes on the first $75,000 of household income for many taxpayers while expanding the child tax credit.

Murphy, who won a four-way Republican primary in June, campaigned on reducing taxes and government spending, supporting small businesses, protecting parental rights, and strengthening domestic energy production.

The Republican challenger also advocated tougher immigration enforcement and greater economic opportunities for New Jersey residents. However, he faced substantial obstacles, including a significant fundraising disadvantage against the well-established Democratic incumbent.

Republicans have not won a U.S. Senate election in New Jersey since 1972, and Booker had previously demonstrated his electoral strength by winning reelection in 2020 by approximately 17 percentage points.

Although President Trump made significant gains in New Jersey during the 2024 presidential election compared with earlier Republican performances, Democrats continued to hold an advantage in statewide voter registration and federal elections.

Booker’s victory also keeps him in the national political spotlight as Democrats begin looking ahead to the 2028 presidential election. The New Jersey senator has been mentioned as a possible contender for his party’s nomination, although he has not announced any plans to seek the presidency.

The result means that Republicans will not gain a Senate seat in New Jersey, leaving the broader battle for control of the chamber dependent on the outcomes of more competitive races elsewhere in the country.

[COMMUNICATED]

Exit Polls: I’m looking for words like ANGER and AFFORDABILITY. This will tell us what’s actually driving voters to the polls. The absence of those words may also mean that a bluewave has been overindexed.

Maury Litwack reporting for Mishpacha

Get real-time results and incisive analysis straight from Mishpacha reporters.

TUNE IN NOW FOR LIVE ELECTION COVERAGE

Gadi Eisenkot, chairman of the Yashar! party, announced Tuesday that his political alliance intends to move quickly to establish a government without Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, replace the Knesset speaker and repeal legislation it considers harmful to Israeli democracy.

Speaking after a meeting of leaders from the anti-Netanyahu bloc, Eisenkot declared that Netanyahu no longer commands a parliamentary majority and insisted that the parties seeking to replace him are united in their determination to form a new government.

“We will act quickly. We have two objectives ahead of us: establishing a national emergency government and carrying out measures in the Knesset,” Eisenkot said, outlining plans to install a new Knesset speaker, introduce legislation and overturn existing laws that he argues threaten democratic institutions.

Eisenkot said the proposed government would operate according to principles agreed upon by the participating parties, including preserving Israel’s identity as a Jewish, democratic and liberal state, based on the values of its Declaration of Independence.

A central element of the proposed coalition’s agenda would be the introduction of a universal service obligation, requiring citizens to perform military, national or civilian service. Such a policy would have major implications for the chareidi community and the ongoing dispute over military enlistment exemptions for yeshiva bochurim.

The alliance’s stated principles also include treating Hamas as a terrorist organization and pursuing the destruction of its military capabilities and governing authority.

The five opposition party leaders who met Tuesday were Eisenkot, Naftali Bennett, Yair Lapid, Avigdor Lieberman and Yair Golan. Following their meeting in Herzliya, they agreed to recommend Eisenkot to President Isaac Herzog as their candidate to form the next government.

They also agreed to pursue the replacement of current Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana, a Likud member, although disagreements remain over who should succeed him. Lieberman has expressed support for Lapid, while Eisenkot’s party is seeking the position for one of its own representatives.

The dispute over the speakership could prove important because control of the Knesset’s agenda would give the opposition greater influence over legislative proceedings even before a new government is established.

Eisenkot sharply criticized Netanyahu and Likud, declaring that the prime minister’s parliamentary support had fallen to just 46 lawmakers.

“Beginning Tuesday, Netanyahu is a caretaker prime minister supported by only 46 members of Knesset,” Eisenkot declared.

Notably, Eisenkot’s calculation excludes United Torah Judaism’s seven seats, an apparent indication that he is leaving open the possibility of cooperation with the chareidi party. However, no agreement with UTJ has been announced, and the proposed universal service requirement could present a major obstacle to such cooperation.

Eisenkot also accused Likud of attempting to discredit the election results and warned that his political opponents would launch a campaign of misinformation aimed at disrupting the opposition’s efforts to form a government.

He predicted a wave of “spins and ugly, dishonest briefings” in the coming days, insisting that the opposition parties would not be intimidated into abandoning their plans.

Referring to the approaching anniversary of the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin, Eisenkot declared, “We will remember what we learned: In the face of violence, incitement and the erosion of the foundations of democracy, we will stand firm, without fear. Anyone who thinks they can intimidate the forces of change does not properly appreciate our determination and our commitment to the citizens of Israel.”

Despite the public declarations of unity, significant disagreements remain within the anti-Netanyahu alliance, particularly over the role of Arab parties in a potential government and the identity of the next Knesset speaker.

Golan has supported cooperation with Arab parties, while other opposition leaders have resisted such an arrangement. The bloc is consequently exploring whether an alternative parliamentary majority could be assembled with support from chareidi lawmakers.

Eisenkot said negotiating teams from the participating parties would begin drafting common coalition guidelines immediately, with the objective of preventing another election and ending what he described as Netanyahu’s continued hold on power.

A new Israeli poll released Tuesday evening shows Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s Likud party gaining strength following last week’s inconclusive election, while a clear majority of Israelis oppose the formation of a minority government led by Gadi Eisenkot that would depend on Arab parties for parliamentary support.

The survey, conducted for i24NEWS, projects 54 Knesset seats for Netanyahu’s right-wing and chareidi bloc, compared with 48 for parties aligned with Eisenkot and 18 for the Arab parties. The results come as political leaders continue exploring possible coalition arrangements amid the prospect of another election.

The poll carries particular interest because i24NEWS produced the election-night projection that reportedly came closest to the actual results of the October 27 election.

According to the new findings, Likud would emerge as the largest party with 28 seats, an increase of one mandate, while Eisenkot’s Yashar! party would finish second with 20 seats.

The Beyachad party would receive 12 seats, followed by the Joint List with 11. The Democrats and Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu would each secure eight seats.

Among the chareidi parties, both United Torah Judaism and Shas would receive seven mandates apiece. Ra’am would also win seven seats, while Religious Zionism–Zehut and Otzma Yehudit would each receive six.

The projected distribution would leave Netanyahu’s bloc seven seats short of the 61 required for a Knesset majority, meaning that even with its improved standing, the right-wing camp would still need support from outside its traditional alliance to establish a government.

The survey also examined public attitudes toward the competing proposals for forming a government, revealing substantial opposition to an Eisenkot-led minority coalition dependent on Arab parties.

A decisive 74% of respondents said they opposed such an arrangement, while 22% supported it. The proposed government would include Ra’am, headed by Mansour Abbas, and depend on the Joint List either abstaining or providing outside parliamentary support.

By contrast, 60% expressed support for a unity government headed by Netanyahu that would bring together Likud, Eisenkot’s Yashar!, Beyachad and Religious Zionism. Another 34% opposed the proposal.

That proposed unity arrangement would be tied to commitments on four divisive issues: chareidi military enlistment, establishing a state commission of inquiry, ending Netanyahu’s criminal trial and advancing a judicial reform agreement.

When respondents were asked to select their preferred political outcome, however, the results were considerably more divided. Some 34% favored holding another election, while an identical 34% preferred a unity government under Netanyahu.

Only 16% selected an Eisenkot-led minority government, while 14% favored a unity coalition headed by Eisenkot.

The poll was conducted on November 2 by Direct Polls, headed by Tzuriel Sharon, for i24NEWS. It surveyed 559 Israeli adults using a digital polling system and respondent panel, with a reported margin of sampling error of 4.1 percentage points.

The findings arrive before the parties’ consultations with President Isaac Herzog, who will be tasked with determining which Knesset member has the best prospect of assembling a governing coalition. With neither major bloc approaching a parliamentary majority on its own, the negotiations could determine whether Israel establishes a unity government or returns to the polls.

A bitter confrontation has erupted at the highest levels of Israel’s security and legal establishment over an investigation into suspected foreign interference in last week’s Knesset election, with Shin Bet Director David Zini and Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara accusing each other of obstructing the inquiry.

The dispute centers on allegations of foreign involvement in the election and possible connections between hostile foreign interests and Arab Knesset members. Zini reportedly wants investigators to use expanded national security powers, while Baharav-Miara maintains that such measures cannot be authorized without sufficient evidence.

The controversy intensified Tuesday evening as Likud, Otzma Yehudit and Religious Zionism accused the attorney general of interfering with the investigation. Some coalition figures demanded that she be removed from the case entirely, while opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot warned against allowing political considerations to influence the security services.

Likud claimed that Baharav-Miara was preventing investigators from questioning Arab political figures, including Ahmad Tibi, Mansour Abbas, Sami Abu Shehadeh and another Knesset member whose name has surfaced in reports concerning the allegations.

“The reports this evening are an earthquake for Israeli democracy,” Likud declared, accusing the attorney general of blocking the Shin Bet from employing security-related investigative methods and attempting to keep suspicions of a national security offense from becoming public.

“Baharav-Miara is working to cover up and sabotage the investigation into the contamination of the elections. This is what selective enforcement looks like,” the party said.

Likud called on Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg and the Central Elections Committee to examine the allegations and provide the public with answers.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir went further, demanding Baharav-Miara’s immediate removal from any involvement in the investigation.

“I demand that she be removed now, moved aside, and not allowed to interfere in the investigation into the manipulation of the elections,” Ben Gvir said.

“She is contaminating the investigation. She must not be allowed to extend her tentacles into it. The attorney general must step aside. The person who should manage the investigation is Shin Bet Director David Zini,” he continued.

Ben Gvir then made the explosive allegation that the election results had been improperly influenced.

“They stole the elections here! The people of Israel will not accept the theft of the elections!” he declared.

No conclusive evidence establishing that the election results were stolen has been publicly presented.

Religious Zionism also demanded action against the attorney general, arguing that the allegations concerning her conduct warranted immediate intervention.

“If the head of the Shin Bet is indeed claiming that Gali Baharav-Miara is obstructing an investigation that goes to the heart of Israeli democracy, then this is an earthquake,” the party said.

The party urged Justice Sohlberg to order Baharav-Miara’s removal from the investigation and demanded a comprehensive examination of suspected ties between hostile foreign elements and Arab lawmakers.

Education Minister Yoav Kisch joined the criticism, asking, “Gali, aren’t you tired of destroying Israeli democracy?”

Eisenkot, meanwhile, issued a sharply different warning, directing his criticism toward Netanyahu and Likud and cautioning Zini against allowing the Shin Bet to become entangled in political maneuvering.

“Those serving in Israel’s security establishment, law enforcement and public service serve the state, not the king. Woe to anyone who corrupts his authority and position for political considerations,” Eisenkot said.

He accused Netanyahu and Likud of attempting to destabilize the country’s democratic institutions following an election in which Netanyahu’s bloc failed to secure a majority.

“In their desperation, Likud and Netanyahu are attempting to carry out a pogrom against democracy and the rule of law. They are trying to drag all of us into a dangerous constitutional crisis. Unfortunately, not for the first time,” Eisenkot declared.

“That is precisely why they are neither worthy nor fit to continue holding power. That is why the majority of Israeli citizens voted against their continued tenure,” he added.

Eisenkot warned that the controversy could damage public confidence in the election results.

“At this difficult hour, politically and in terms of security, they are trying to sabotage public trust in the election results. Citizens of Israel, stand firm. This is a moment of truth for the future of the state as a liberal democracy,” he said.

Baharav-Miara responded to the accusations with an unusual public statement, insisting that investigators must establish a factual basis before questioning citizens or elected officials.

“Very unusually, and in light of erroneous reports, the attorney general wishes to clarify that in a state governed by law, citizens or elected officials cannot be investigated without evidence justifying it,” her office stated.

“If the Shin Bet or any other body possesses evidence justifying an investigation, it is invited to present it. Anyone who needs to be investigated will be investigated, but people will not be investigated without an evidentiary basis,” the statement continued.

The attorney general then accused the Shin Bet itself of delaying the inquiry by withholding materials from the investigative team established to examine the allegations.

“For two days, the Shin Bet has not transferred the investigative materials collected to the special investigative team established on the recommendation of Justice Sohlberg, in cooperation with the police and under the supervision of the State Attorney’s Office, thereby effectively delaying the handling of the matter,” her office said.

“The law enforcement system is acting quickly and professionally to uncover the truth based on the material in its possession, and investigative decisions will be made accordingly,” the statement added.

According to Haaretz, Zini has resisted transferring investigative materials to police and prosecutors, including intelligence concerning money allegedly received by a Joint List lawmaker. The report also alleged that he had excluded senior Shin Bet officials from aspects of the investigation and established direct communication with Sohlberg to bypass the attorney general.

Senior law enforcement officials sharply criticized Zini’s conduct. “He is operating like in North Korea. In a democracy, you do not investigate Knesset members without evidence,” officials were quoted as saying.

Additional reporting indicated that the dispute intensified when Zini sought to classify the entire affair as a national security investigation, a designation that would allow the Shin Bet to employ broader investigative powers, including surveillance and other security measures.

Baharav-Miara reportedly rejected the blanket classification, arguing that national security powers require evidence of relevant security offenses and that using such methods without proper authorization could jeopardize the admissibility of evidence.

During a lengthy meeting involving Zini, Baharav-Miara and Sohlberg, the parties reportedly disagreed even over how to describe the investigation publicly. Sohlberg ultimately proposed language acknowledging that the allegations could have a national security dimension without automatically classifying the entire matter as a security offense.

Separate reports indicated that Zini was seeking authorization to question Tibi, Abbas, Abu Shehadeh and a fourth senior Arab political figure. According to the reports, investigators had presented a stronger evidentiary basis concerning the fourth individual, whose identity has not been released.

The Central Elections Committee, meanwhile, has rejected suggestions that the suspected foreign interference necessarily means the election results will change. Officials have emphasized that even if wrongdoing is established, it does not automatically follow that the distribution of Knesset seats was affected.

Baharav-Miara insisted that substantial investigative steps had already been authorized at the Shin Bet’s request and that a joint team involving the security service, police and prosecutors would continue examining the allegations.

“Anyone who needs to be investigated will be investigated,” she said.

{Matzav.com}

Shas’s Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah has decided to recommend Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to President Isaac Herzog to form Israel’s next government, following Netanyahu’s public commitment to advance legislation protecting the status of yeshiva bochurim who are dedicated to learning Torah.

The decision, announced Tuesday, represents a significant development in the negotiations to establish a new coalition following last week’s Knesset election. It comes amid efforts by opposition parties to attract support from the chareidi factions, whose representatives could play a decisive role in determining who will form the next government.

According to Shas, the decision was reached after Netanyahu reaffirmed his intention to pursue a legislative arrangement addressing the status of bnei yeshivos and their military service obligations.

“In light of Prime Minister Binyomin Netanyahu’s clear and unequivocal statement reaffirming his continued support and commitment to regulating the status of Torah scholars, the Shas Council of Torah Sages has decided to recommend him to the President as its candidate to form the government,” the party announced.

The announcement followed a statement by Netanyahu criticizing opposition leaders who had met earlier in Herzliya and agreed not to rule out coalition negotiations with the chareidi parties.

Netanyahu accused the opposition of abandoning its campaign rhetoric against the chareidi community now that its leaders were seeking the parliamentary support necessary to establish a government.

“The hypocrisy we are witnessing now is outrageous. Suddenly, it’s no longer a ‘draft evasion law,’ but a ‘soft conscription law.’ Suddenly, they are no longer ‘parasites,’ ‘draft dodgers,’ or ‘destroyers of the state,’ but are being given a completely clean slate,” Netanyahu said.

The prime minister maintained that his position on the draft issue had not changed. He pledged to continue promoting legislation that would enable full-time yeshiva bochurim and kollel yungeleit to remain devoted to limud haTorah, while providing for the enlistment of chareidi men who are not studying in yeshivos.

Shas also condemned what it described as years of hostility toward the chareidi community by opposition politicians, accusing them of reversing their positions for political advantage.

In its statement, the party charged that left-wing leaders had conducted an unprecedented campaign of vilification and persecution against the chareidi public and lomdei Torah, whom it described as the foundation of the Jewish people’s continued existence.

Meanwhile, United Torah Judaism has not yet announced which candidate it will recommend. Netanyahu spoke Tuesday morning with UTJ chairman MK Yaakov Asher, who reportedly informed him that the party would wait for the return of Gedolei Yisroel from their trip abroad before making a decision.

During the conversation, Netanyahu reiterated his commitment to completing the draft legislation and warned against the establishment of a government dependent on parties he accused of supporting terrorism.

UTJ’s position has attracted particular attention because opposition leaders, including Gadi Eisenkot, Naftali Bennett, Yair Lapid and Avigdor Lieberman, are exploring ways to form a government without Netanyahu. Their discussions have included the possibility of securing support from chareidi lawmakers despite their previous opposition to arrangements protecting yeshiva students from conscription.

Religious Zionism, headed by Bezalel Smotrich, also announced Tuesday that it would recommend Netanyahu to Herzog. The party called for the formation of a broad Jewish coalition under Netanyahu’s leadership, arguing that he heads both the largest individual party and the largest parliamentary bloc.

Otzma Yehudit, led by Itamar Ben Gvir, similarly confirmed that it would support Netanyahu for another term as prime minister.

According to the current seat distribution, Netanyahu’s bloc holds 53 mandates, while Eisenkot’s opposition alliance has 48 and the Arab parties control 19. Neither side has the 61 seats necessary to command a majority in the 120-member Knesset.

President Herzog is scheduled to begin consultations with the Knesset factions on Wednesday and Thursday before deciding which candidate should receive the first opportunity to assemble a coalition. Eisenkot is currently expected to receive the greatest number of recommendations, although that would not guarantee his ability to establish a government.

For the chareidi parties, the central issue remains the future of the draft law and the legal status of bnei yeshivos. Shas has now publicly committed its support to Netanyahu, while UTJ’s leadership continues to consult with the Gedolei Yisroel before determining its next steps.

{Matzav.com}

Iran has rejected Washington’s response to its latest peace proposal, declaring that the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz will remain closed unless the United States agrees to all seven of Tehran’s conditions for ending the conflict.

The announcement Tuesday came as President Donald Trump expressed optimism about reaching an agreement with Iran, even as he warned that American forces remain prepared to launch additional strikes against the country’s nuclear facilities.

Mohsen Rezaei, a senior Iranian security official, said Tehran was dissatisfied with the American response and would not consider reopening the waterway until Washington explicitly accepted and implemented its demands.

“America’s response to Iran’s rights and demands was not convincing, and they must fully and explicitly address Iran’s seven conditions and act upon them,” Rezaei wrote on X.

“Only in this case will the Strait of Hormuz be reopened,” he added.

Iranian officials have insisted that their seven-point proposal must serve as the foundation for any agreement. Among Tehran’s demands are financial compensation from the United States for damage sustained during the conflict, an end to American economic pressure and the removal of the U.S. naval blockade on Iranian ports.

Tehran is also demanding a cessation of military operations throughout the Middle East, including in Lebanon and Gaza, where Iranian-backed terrorist groups have been involved in fighting.

Other conditions include the release of billions of dollars in frozen Iranian funds and a reduction in the American military presence across the region.

Iran is further insisting that any agreement permanently end the war rather than merely establish a temporary ceasefire. Its proposal also seeks to exclude the country’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs from future negotiations.

The latest Iranian rejection follows several public statements by Trump suggesting that the prolonged confrontation could be approaching a diplomatic resolution.

Speaking to reporters Monday, Trump dismissed speculation that major fighting would resume immediately after Tuesday’s U.S. midterm elections, arguing that American military operations had already accomplished their objectives.

“We had a war with Iran. We won,” Trump said. “I don’t know if you even call it a war because we haven’t been doing any fighting for months.”

Trump subsequently suggested that an agreement could be reached to restore shipping through the Strait of Hormuz while addressing the Iranian nuclear threat.

“Oil Prices are DROPPING LIKE A ROCK, down almost $10 a Barrel, A RECORD, because people feel that there will not be a War with Iran. Iran wants a settlement, as soon as possible. It could happen!” the president wrote on Truth Social.

The diplomatic impasse comes as Qatar and Pakistan continue efforts to broker an agreement between Washington and Tehran. Qatari mediators have reportedly presented revised proposals to both sides, with further responses expected as negotiations continue.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi recently indicated that Tehran could reopen the Strait of Hormuz within two days of an agreement if Washington first carried out the required measures. The shortened timetable represents a change from Iran’s earlier proposal, which envisioned a seven-day implementation period.

The tensions intensified Monday when American forces carried out limited strikes against Iranian targets on Qeshm Island, near the Strait of Hormuz. U.S. officials described the operation as a defensive response after Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces fired at an American aircraft.

Despite the renewed military activity, Vice President JD Vance said the administration remained encouraged by the diplomatic contacts and believed further progress was possible.

During an appearance Monday night on Fox News with Sean Hannity, Trump emphasized that any agreement must eliminate Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons.

“We cannot let Iran, an evil nation, who has killed many of our people, Soleimani is an example, no longer with us, but killed many of our people, we cannot let them have a nuclear weapon, and we won’t,” Trump stated.

The president also warned that American forces could quickly strike Pickaxe Mountain, a deeply buried Iranian nuclear installation that has remained a potential target.

“We bombed out all of their potential nuclear power. Now, we might have to go after Pickaxe [Mountain], but that’s not a big deal. We can do it in, literally, we can do that in one hour, okay, as soon as we want, at any time we want.”

Trump nevertheless maintained that the Iranian leadership was eager to avoid another major confrontation, saying Tehran’s representatives “want to make a deal very badly, there’s a very good chance we make a deal.”

A senior Army general dismissed by War Secretary Pete Hegseth is under federal investigation over allegations that he disclosed classified military intelligence concerning Iran and Ukraine to reporters at The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, raising the possibility of criminal charges and a military court-martial.

Former Army Lt. Gen. Brett Sylvia was removed from his position last week following an investigation into suspected unauthorized communications with journalists. According to Axios, investigators believe the general passed sensitive military information to reporters and subsequently acknowledged making unauthorized disclosures during recorded questioning.

Three individuals familiar with the inquiry told Axios that Sylvia failed four polygraph examinations and made admissions during two videotaped interviews lasting more than two hours combined.

“The president has no tolerance for leakers, so Sylvia’s termination is the first step in the accountability process, not the last,” one source told Axios.

The Justice Department is examining allegations that Sylvia began providing classified information to Wall Street Journal reporter Michael Gordon in the fall of 2025. Investigators reportedly identified several interactions between the two, including a meeting at the Pentagon and another at a Silver Diner restaurant in Arlington, Virginia.

An internal Defense Department investigative report obtained by Axios describes how Sylvia allegedly used information from a classified document to brief Gordon about American military assistance to Ukraine.

“Major General Sylvia relied on notes he took while reviewing a classified secret report to orally brief Gordon on assistance to Ukraine,” the report stated.

Investigators are also examining allegations that Sylvia disclosed sensitive information about American weapons inventories and discussions involving Iran.

A separate legal review reportedly identified disclosures concerning “munitions stockpiles and high-level interagency discussions with Iran,” according to an individual familiar with the findings.

The inquiry has also focused on Sylvia’s use of Signal, an encrypted messaging platform, and whether communications with journalists were subsequently erased.

According to the Pentagon report, Gordon contacted Sylvia through Signal in June or July, although the general reportedly said he could not remember the precise contents of the communication.

“Sylvia is unable to recall exactly what was in that message,” the report stated. “But he believed it had something to do with Iran. He stated that he did not respond to the message and instead deleted it.”

Investigators said Sylvia acknowledged deleting the entire Signal conversation, potentially eliminating messages and records of calls exchanged through the application.

The Pentagon investigation also identified communications between Sylvia and New York Times reporter Greg Jaffe concerning Hegseth’s decisions to dismiss senior military officers.

Neither Gordon nor Jaffe has been accused of wrongdoing. The allegations concern Sylvia’s handling of information obtained through his military position, and the claims have not been established in court.

The investigation has also generated questions inside the Pentagon about how senior military officials handled Sylvia’s dismissal. The Joint Staff initially released a complimentary farewell statement recognizing his service, only to withdraw it after senior Defense Department officials raised concerns about the circumstances surrounding his removal.

“You don’t get four polygraphs deep without the head of the Joint Staff being briefed at some point. Why wasn’t he flagged, what red flags flared up?” a source familiar with the investigation told Axios.

Sylvia, a decorated career officer who previously commanded the Army’s 101st Airborne Division, had been serving as director for strategy, plans and policy on the Joint Staff, a senior position responsible for military planning and strategic advice to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The Air Force Office of Special Investigations conducted the internal inquiry, and the Pentagon subsequently referred the matter to the Justice Department for possible prosecution. The general could also face proceedings under military law, including allegations of “conduct unbecoming of an officer.”

The accusations have generated disagreement among some military officials. Earlier reporting indicated that colleagues questioned the allegations, while one individual familiar with Sylvia’s position said he denied leaking classified information despite acknowledging contact with journalists.

The case comes amid Hegseth’s broader campaign to identify unauthorized disclosures from the Pentagon. The administration has expanded the use of polygraph examinations, established a joint effort with the Justice Department to investigate leaks, and tightened rules governing journalists’ access to military facilities.

The Pentagon has maintained that safeguarding classified military information is essential, regardless of an official’s rank or position.

Assistant War Secretary Sean Parnell warned last week that “classified information is not personal property. Leaking it for personal, political or professional gain is a betrayal of the trust placed in those responsible for keeping it.”

President Donald Trump’s ability to carry out his agenda during the final two years of his presidency hangs in the balance Tuesday as Americans vote in midterm elections that could either strengthen Republican control of Washington or hand Democrats the congressional power to obstruct his policies and investigate his administration.

With Republicans defending narrow majorities in both the House and Senate, the election could dramatically alter the political landscape. A Republican victory would give Trump additional leverage to advance his priorities on immigration, taxes, trade and national security, while a Democrat takeover of either chamber could significantly complicate his plans.

Republicans entered the election holding a 218-214 advantage in the House and a 53-47 majority in the Senate, according to Reuters. Democrats would need a net gain of four seats in either chamber to secure control.

Although several national surveys have indicated that Democrats are positioned to gain House seats, Republicans remain hopeful that strong turnout among Trump supporters will produce a better result than polling suggests. The president’s allies have pointed to previous elections in which surveys underestimated Republican support.

Trump has devoted considerable attention to the midterms, urging his supporters to approach the election as though he were personally seeking another term.

“You have to pretend I’m on the ballot because when I’m on the ballot, we get almost 50% more voters out,” Trump told supporters during a Monday telephone rally, according to CBS News.

The president described Tuesday’s voting as “the most important midterm election in the history of our country,” arguing that Republican success would preserve the momentum of his administration.

Trump also acknowledged that the president’s party has traditionally struggled in midterm contests, although he maintained that Republicans had mounted an unusually aggressive campaign.

“For some reason, the sitting president doesn’t win the midterms,” Trump said Monday, according to CBS News. “But we gave this a very strong shot.”

A Republican victory in both chambers would allow Trump to portray the outcome as a public endorsement of his America First policies, particularly given the historical tendency of voters to punish the party controlling the White House during midterm elections.

Continued GOP control would also make it easier for the administration to pursue additional tax legislation, immigration measures, changes to federal spending and healthcare policy, and the confirmation of judicial and executive branch nominees.

An analysis by S&P Global Market Intelligence suggested that Republican majorities would give the White House greater freedom to advance tax reductions, immigration restrictions and trade initiatives while limiting congressional resistance to the administration’s priorities.

Republican control of the Senate would be especially important for Trump’s judicial appointments, including any potential Supreme Court vacancy during the remainder of his presidency.

Democrats, meanwhile, have focused their campaign on the cost of living, economic concerns and the war with Iran, hoping dissatisfaction with the administration will translate into congressional gains.

Election analysts have generally viewed the House as the Democrats’ stronger opportunity, while several closely contested Senate races could determine whether Republicans retain their advantage in the upper chamber.

Nevertheless, Republican strategists argue that polling may not fully capture the strength of Trump’s political coalition, particularly among rural and working-class voters who have sometimes been underrepresented in surveys.

Republican pollster Patrick Ruffini has pointed to previous Senate contests in Iowa, Michigan and Ohio, where polling during the 2018 through 2024 election cycles overstated Democratic support by an average of 6.2 percentage points. Other polling experts have cautioned that predicting turnout in midterm elections is especially difficult because participation tends to be lower than in presidential years.

More than 57 million Americans had already voted before Election Day, according to figures cited by Reuters, exceeding the approximately 46 million early votes cast in the 2022 midterms. The election is also on pace to become the most expensive in American history, with candidates and outside organizations expected to spend approximately $11.9 billion.

Should Democrats capture the House, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries would be positioned to become speaker, giving his party control of congressional committees, investigative hearings and subpoena authority.

Democrats could use those powers to scrutinize administration officials, federal spending decisions, immigration enforcement and other White House policies. They would also gain greater influence over budget negotiations and government funding legislation.

A Democratic Senate majority would pose an additional challenge, potentially slowing or blocking Trump’s judicial nominations, cabinet appointments and other confirmations. Any Supreme Court vacancy could become particularly contentious.

However, even a Democratic takeover of both chambers would leave Trump with substantial executive authority and the power to veto legislation passed by Congress.

The White House has already been preparing for that possibility. According to Reuters, senior administration officials, including Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought, have examined ways to continue advancing immigration enforcement, tariffs, housing policies and spending priorities without relying on new congressional legislation.

Trump has also outlined how he would respond if Democrats gained control, suggesting that repeated presidential vetoes could eventually force negotiations.

“I guess I’ll become Mr. Veto,” Trump told the New York Post’s “Pod Force One” podcast in an interview excerpt released Sunday. “And then at some point, we’ll probably make deals.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent similarly argued last month that there would be “very little” a Democratic House could accomplish to derail the administration’s broader agenda.

Even with Republicans retaining both chambers, however, Congress could face difficult negotiations over federal spending and the debt ceiling in 2027. Analysts have warned that partisan divisions and disagreements within the Republican Party could still produce legislative stalemates.

The election will also influence the Republican Party’s direction ahead of the 2028 presidential race. A strong GOP performance would reinforce Trump’s standing as the party’s dominant figure, while significant losses could encourage potential successors and congressional Republicans to distance themselves from some of his policies.

Trump has made clear that he considers the election a critical test of his presidency and has invested considerably more time campaigning than he has in previous midterm cycles.

“I’ve never worked the midterms like I have this one,” Trump said in a recent interview with the New York Post’s Miranda Devine, according to CBS News.

“This is really because I think it’s so important,” he said. “We’ve done so well. The country is so hot. We want to keep it that way.”

Americans are heading to the polls Tuesday for the 2026 midterm elections, with control of Congress, numerous governorships, and thousands of state and local offices at stake. While results from some states could become clear shortly after voting ends, closely contested races may remain unresolved well into Wednesday or even for several days.

The first polls begin closing at 6 p.m. Eastern, setting off a series of reporting deadlines that will stretch past midnight. The busiest periods will come at 8 p.m. and 9 p.m., when voting concludes across much of the country and election officials begin releasing results from major battleground states.

For New York and New Jersey voters, the 9 p.m. closing time in New York will be particularly important, with the state’s gubernatorial contest and competitive congressional races among those attracting attention. New Jersey polls close an hour earlier, at 8 p.m.

All times below are Eastern Standard Time.

6 P.M. — FIRST RESULTS FROM INDIANA AND KENTUCKY

The earliest polls close in portions of Indiana and Kentucky, giving election watchers their first glimpse of voter preferences. However, statewide results cannot be called until voting concludes in the remaining areas of both states at 7 p.m.

Among the congressional contests attracting attention are Indiana’s 5th District and Kentucky’s 6th District.

7 P.M. — GEORGIA, VIRGINIA AND SOUTH CAROLINA ENTER THE PICTURE

Voting concludes in six states, including Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia, which have historically reported results relatively quickly.

During the 2024 presidential election, all three states had counted approximately half their ballots by the 8 p.m. hour. Georgia reached 90% of its count at 10:21 p.m., South Carolina at 11:14 p.m., and Virginia shortly after midnight.

Most Florida polling locations also close at 7 p.m., including those in competitive congressional districts, although statewide winners cannot be announced until voting ends in the state’s western Panhandle at 8 p.m.

7:30 P.M. — NORTH CAROLINA AND OHIO JOIN THE COUNT

Polls close in North Carolina, Ohio and West Virginia, bringing additional Senate, gubernatorial and congressional contests into focus.

All three states have generally processed ballots at a relatively brisk pace. In 2024, they reached approximately 50% of their counts around 9 p.m. and approached 90% during the 11 p.m. hour.

The Associated Press called Ohio’s closely watched 2024 Senate election at 11:27 p.m.

Major contests during the 7 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. periods include Senate races in Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Ohio, along with gubernatorial elections in Georgia and Ohio and several competitive House districts.

8 P.M. — THE FIRST MAJOR WAVE OF RESULTS

One of the night’s most consequential reporting periods arrives at 8 p.m., when polls close fully or partially in nearly half the country.

Florida, Maine, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania are among the states to watch, with important Senate, gubernatorial and congressional contests on the ballot.

Florida is traditionally among the fastest states to report its results. In 2024, approximately 90% of ballots had been counted by 8:07 p.m.

Pennsylvania and New Hampshire typically require more time. Both reached the halfway point around 10 p.m. in 2024, with Pennsylvania reaching 90% shortly before 1 a.m. and New Hampshire approaching that level around 1:42 a.m.

Maine’s count was considerably slower, reaching 50% only at 12:54 a.m.

Most polling places in Michigan and Texas also close at 8 p.m., although statewide races cannot be called until voting concludes in their remaining time zones at 9 p.m.

Arkansas follows with an 8:30 p.m. closing time.

9 P.M. — NEW YORK, MICHIGAN AND WISCONSIN TAKE CENTER STAGE

Another major round of poll closings arrives at 9 p.m., with voting ending in numerous battleground states, including New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Kansas and Arizona. Statewide voting also concludes in Texas.

New York’s gubernatorial election, along with competitive congressional races across the state, will be among the major contests drawing attention. Senate and gubernatorial races in Michigan, Texas and several Midwestern states could also help determine the political direction of the country.

Based on the 2024 election, Iowa, Nebraska, New York and Wisconsin may reach approximately half their total vote counts during the 10 p.m. hour. Minnesota took until 11:29 p.m. to reach that point.

New York and Iowa were approaching 90% counted before midnight in 2024, while Wisconsin, Nebraska and Minnesota needed until the early morning hours.

Michigan could take considerably longer. During the previous presidential election, the state did not reach 90% counted until 4:50 a.m.

Arizona closes its polls at 9 p.m. but does not release its first results until 10 p.m., meaning voters will have to wait an additional hour for the initial figures.

10 P.M. — ARIZONA RESULTS ARRIVE AS WESTERN STATES CLOSE

At 10 p.m., polls close in Montana, Nevada and Utah, along with portions of Idaho and Oregon.

Congressional races in those states will begin producing results, while Arizona’s first reported vote totals will offer an initial indication of the outcome of its gubernatorial and House contests.

Arizona’s voting procedures and ballot-counting requirements mean that particularly close races could remain unsettled beyond election night.

11 P.M. — CALIFORNIA AND WASHINGTON BEGIN REPORTING

The final polling locations in California, Washington, Idaho and Oregon close at 11 p.m. Eastern.

California’s gubernatorial contest, Proposition 40 and competitive congressional districts will be among the races receiving attention, along with House contests in Washington.

However, voters should not expect every close race on the West Coast to be decided Tuesday night.

Both California and Washington conduct much of their voting by mail, and ballots that arrive after Election Day can still be counted if they meet state deadlines.

California will accept qualifying ballots received through November 10, while Washington’s deadline extends to November 23.

In 2024, approximately 38% of California’s total vote and 33% of Washington’s remained uncounted at the end of election night.

Washington did not reach 90% counted until November 9, while California reached that level on November 14.

MIDNIGHT AND 1 A.M. — ALASKA BRINGS ELECTION NIGHT TO A CLOSE

Hawaii and most of Alaska conclude voting at midnight Eastern, with the country’s final polling locations closing at 1 a.m. in Alaska’s Aleutian Islands.

Alaska’s Senate and House races will be closely monitored, although the state’s extensive use of absentee and early voting means final results may take considerably longer.

In 2024, roughly one-quarter of Alaska’s ballots remained uncounted when election night ended.

The state is not expected to receive all eligible military and overseas ballots until November 18, meaning close contests could remain unresolved for more than two weeks. Alaska’s ranked-choice voting system could also require additional tabulation if no candidate receives a majority of first-choice votes.

For voters following the national results, the first major indications of how the midterms are unfolding should emerge between 8 p.m. and midnight, although the final balance of power in Congress may depend on races that take days to settle.

{Matzav.com}

Widespread voting machine malfunctions disrupted Election Day in New York’s Westchester County on Tuesday, with ballot scanners rejecting paper ballots at polling locations and election officials resorting to emergency procedures to preserve votes for counting later.

The problems prompted concerns about the handling of ballots in one of New York’s most populous counties, particularly as voters cast their ballots in several closely contested races, including the battle between Republican Congressman Mike Lawler and Democrat Cait Conley in the 17th Congressional District.

Appearing on Newsmax’s “National Report,” Lawler described the situation as “very frustrating not only for us but for voters,” while calling on election officials to ensure that the technical difficulties would not prevent anyone from having their vote counted.

“This is a county of over a million people. It’s one of the largest counties in the state,” Lawler said. “And we need to make sure that every single vote is counted, that every single ballot is counted, that everybody stays online and exercises their right to vote.”

According to reports, ballot scanners at polling sites throughout Westchester were refusing to accept completed paper ballots. Election workers were instructed to secure the ballots in emergency storage bags so they could be processed once the technical problems were addressed.

The Westchester County Board of Elections acknowledged the widespread difficulties and apologized to voters, although officials initially provided no definitive explanation for the failures or a timetable for restoring normal operations.

“Let us be absolutely clear: Every eligible vote will be counted,” Democrat Commissioner Tajian M. Nelson and Republican Commissioner Douglas A. Colety said in a joint statement.

Lawler said Republican and Democratic election officials had agreed to consolidate the counting process at a central facility rather than attempting to tabulate the affected ballots separately at each polling location.

“So everything will be in one location so that we can oversee, we can monitor, we can make sure that every ballot is counted,” he said.

Election officials initially pointed to the thickness of the ballot paper as a possible explanation for the failures. However, the county subsequently removed that explanation from its public statement, leaving the precise cause unresolved. The difficulties reportedly began when polling places opened at 6 a.m., even though the scanners had functioned during early voting.

The New York State Board of Elections joined county officials and equipment vendors in investigating the malfunction. New York Attorney General Letitia James also announced that her office was monitoring the situation and reassured residents that they could continue submitting ballots safely.

The disruption has drawn particular attention because of the closely contested race in New York’s 17th Congressional District, where Lawler is seeking a third term against Conley. The district includes portions of Westchester and Dutchess counties, along with Rockland and Putnam counties, and is considered a potentially decisive battleground in the fight for control of the House of Representatives.

Lawler said the campaign has attracted more than $60 million in spending and expressed confidence that voters would return him to Washington.

“My constituents know me. We’ve delivered real results for them, including delivering the largest tax cut in American history, securing the border,” he said.

The Republican congressman also criticized Conley’s political record and connections to Virginia, accusing his Democratic opponent of supporting policies that would increase taxes.

Despite the equipment failures, Lawler urged residents not to abandon their plans to vote or allow election predictions to discourage them.

“Don’t believe the pollsters, the pundits, the media. Just vote. Get out and vote,” Lawler urged.

Conley likewise encouraged voters to remain at their polling locations and cast their ballots despite the technical difficulties.

The county’s emergency procedures call for affected ballots to remain in secured, monitored orange bags until they can be processed. Local reports indicated that the ballots would be transferred to election officials for counting after polls close.

The breakdown could delay the release of final results in closely contested races, particularly if the machines cannot be repaired and election workers must use alternative counting procedures.

Officials emphasized that voting remained open throughout the county and urged residents to stay in line, follow poll workers’ instructions, and submit their completed ballots before polls close at 9 p.m.

{Matzav.com}

Likud MK Moshe Saada is dismissing the possibility of an alternative Israeli government bringing together opposition parties, chareidi factions, and Arab parties, claiming that even members of Gadi Eisenkot’s own Yashar party are unwilling to support such an arrangement.

In an interview with Arutz Sheva, Saada said he had personally spoken with individuals in Eisenkot’s party who made clear that they would oppose a coalition dependent on Arab political factions. He argued that the opposition lacks a realistic path to forming a government and will ultimately have to choose between joining a broad coalition headed by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and returning to the polls.

“People in Eisenkot’s party tell me they will not sit with them. They say this unequivocally, so it won’t happen,” Saada says, declining to identify the individuals involved. “I would recommend that Eisenkot speak with members of his own party and check whether they give him legitimacy to engage in this discussion. They know that even having this discussion is wrong and inappropriate.”

Saada maintained that recent changes in the opposition’s position on the draft of chareidi yeshiva bochurim would not make a coalition with the Arab parties any more feasible.

“It won’t happen. This is an empty spin with no substance. The chances of this spin becoming reality are zero,” he declares.

His objections, he explained, extend beyond the political feasibility of such a government. Saada contended that merely entertaining the possibility of cooperation with certain Arab factions gives legitimacy to political positions he considers unacceptable.

“My problem with this spin is the very existence of a discourse that normalizes sitting with supporters of terrorism. The fact that [Naftali] Bennett and Eisenkot allow such a discussion normalizes the legitimacy of supporters of terrorism,” he argues.

Saada specifically targeted the Ra’am party, alleging that its political platform includes positions fundamentally incompatible with the principles of a Jewish state.

“Apparently, neither Eisenkot nor Bennett bothered to read Ra’am’s platform. They talk about occupied Jerusalem becoming the capital of Palestine, the release of all prisoners – meaning including the Nukhba terrorists – and they regard the Law of Return as racist, which effectively means abolishing recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. None of this will happen, but the very discussion of it is what normalizes these positions.”

Asked about Naftali Bennett’s previous coalition, which included Ra’am, Saada argued that the October 7 massacre had fundamentally changed Israeli public attitudes toward political cooperation with Arab parties. He asserted that Israelis had come to believe that “they don’t want to live alongside us, but in our place.”

Saada also pointed to Yisrael Beytenu chairman Avigdor Lieberman’s opposition to a minority government as another obstacle to the opposition’s plans. He predicted that another election could deliver at least 70 Knesset seats to the right-wing and religious parties.

“The change bloc cannot form a government under any circumstances. There is only one option: a broad national right-wing government, as the prime minister is proposing, or elections. Eisenkot will have to choose between the two,” he says.

According to Saada, Eisenkot will initially attempt to assemble an alternative coalition before recognizing that the numbers and political disagreements make such a government impossible.

“Right now, Eisenkot isn’t ready. He will try to form a government, realize that it is impossible, and then have to decide whether to go to elections, in which case his party will collapse, or join a broad national government without boycotts – neither Otzma Yehudit nor anyone else should be excluded. The platform will be fully national and right-wing.”

Saada expressed doubt that Yair Lapid would agree to serve in a Netanyahu-led government, although he suggested that Bennett might eventually be more receptive to joining such a coalition.

“Lapid has five people. His party has been cut by almost 80 percent. It’s a party that barely exists anymore. I think he would prefer to sit in the opposition with Liberman, but we’ll see,” he says.

Turning to the contentious issue of drafting chareidi yeshiva students, Saada accused opposition politicians of abandoning their previous positions on military service in pursuit of a coalition with chareidi parties.

“It was clear to me that the change bloc was not acting out of principle, but out of a desire to bring down the government,” he says.

Saada, who has promoted the principle “Those who serve should receive,” said his proposed legislation would apply a uniform standard to all sectors of Israeli society, including chareidim, secular individuals who refuse military service on pacifist grounds, and Arab citizens.

Under his approach, government benefits would be linked to national or military service rather than granted according to communal affiliation.

“They want to join forces with the haredim and the Arabs, so ‘no service, no benefits’ is irrelevant to them. But that won’t help them, because ‘no service, no benefits’ is the right, moral, principled and Zionist approach. It’s time to end the discriminatory policy that harms the Arab public and give benefits exclusively to those who serve. Today, the haredim and the Arabs are the ones receiving preferential treatment,” he says.

On the prospect of a broad national unity government, Saada conceded that the participating parties would have to reach compromises. Nevertheless, he insisted that certain ideological positions could not be sacrificed in the process.

Among his priorities is continued Jewish settlement development in Yehuda and Shomron, which he considers essential to Israel’s security, particularly following the October 7 massacre.

Saada also said judicial reform must remain on the agenda of the next government. He revealed that he had previously held discussions with opposition representatives aimed at reaching agreements on changes to the judicial system, but claimed that understandings reached in those talks ultimately failed to secure approval from party leaders.

“There is no need to explain to Matan Kahana why the judicial system needs reform. The same applies to Elisaf Peretz and others,” he says.

In Saada’s assessment, negotiations over a unity government would be more likely to encounter disagreements over ministerial appointments than over the fundamental policies he considers necessary.

“But we’re not there yet. First, they need to go through a process of coming around to the understanding that Netanyahu will be the next prime minister. He leads the largest party and the largest bloc,” he says.

Saada predicted that Eisenkot would eventually conclude that joining a Netanyahu-led coalition would be preferable to facing voters again.

“Eisenkot will do the math and understand that in another election, they will collapse,” he says.

He also accused the opposition of employing questionable campaign tactics and argued that Eisenkot could suffer politically if voters believed he had broken his commitments concerning cooperation with Arab parties.

“Voters who trusted Eisenkot when he said they would not sit with the Arabs will realize they were lied to, and the public will punish them,” he concludes.

Meanwhile, the political maneuvering continued Tuesday as opposition leaders met in Herzliya and agreed to recommend Eisenkot to President Isaac Herzog as their candidate to form the next government. The opposition has 48 seats, compared with 53 for Netanyahu’s bloc, while the two Arab factions hold 19 seats.

Reports following the meeting indicated that opposition leaders were considering negotiations with the chareidi parties as a possible alternative to relying on Arab support. However, no agreement with Shas or United Torah Judaism had been reached.

Saada also made similar remarks in a separate interview with Radio 103FM, arguing that Eisenkot’s efforts to cooperate with either the chareidi parties or Arab factions would ultimately fail. In that interview, he said Likud would not abandon its existing political partners to facilitate a unity agreement.

President Herzog is scheduled to begin consultations with the newly elected Knesset factions on Wednesday, with the parties preparing to submit their recommendations for who should receive the first opportunity to assemble a governing coalition.

{Matzav.com}

IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir pledged Tuesday that chareidi young men who enlist in the Israeli military will be able to maintain their religious identity and way of life throughout their service, declaring that the army has no intention of changing who they are.

Speaking during a visit to the chareidi hesder yeshiva in Gan Yavne, Zamir said that increasing the number of soldiers serving in the IDF is essential to Israel’s security, but emphasized that the military must provide conditions that accommodate the religious requirements of chareidi recruits.

“The IDF does not seek to change your identity. Our goal is for you to enter the army haredi and leave the army haredi,” Zamir told the yeshiva students. “This is not just a statement, but a commitment on the part of the IDF and a personal commitment of mine.”

The visit took place amid the continuing controversy over the drafting of chareidi yeshiva students, an issue that has generated considerable tension between the Israeli government, the military establishment, and the chareidi community.

Joining Zamir at the gathering were Netzach Yehuda Association CEO Yossi Levy, Derech Chaim Yeshiva head Rabbi Carmi Gross, and senior IDF officers. The discussion focused on combining limud haTorah with military service, expanding enlistment, and addressing the country’s growing defense needs.

“For me, simply coming to a place of Torah study is a great privilege,” Zamir told the students, praising their decision to pursue a program that incorporates both Torah learning and preparation for military service.

The IDF chief maintained that the students represented an example of how a chareidi lifestyle could be preserved while participating in the country’s defense.

“You prove that it is possible to preserve your identity, share the burden, and take part in defending the State of Israel and its citizens,” he said.

Zamir referred to the concept of Sifra V’Saifa, combining the sefer and the sword, as an expression of the approach being pursued by the yeshiva.

“I see your decision to take part in the shared responsibility for Israel’s security alongside a deep commitment to Torah study and preserving tradition,” he said. “This is a unique combination that the IDF and the people of Israel need today more than ever.”

He also described the students as trailblazers whose decision to enlist could encourage others to follow a similar path.

“Each of you is a modern-day Nachshon ben Aminadav. You will be remembered as pioneers who paved the way for others,” he added.

Beyond offering assurances about preserving religious identity, Zamir acknowledged that creating separate military programs for chareidi recruits would not, by itself, be sufficient. He said officers responsible for these units must understand the religious sensitivities and daily requirements of the soldiers serving under them.

“Our responsibility does not end with creating suitable service frameworks. It requires us to recognize the needs of haredi servicemen, understand their world, and respect their faith,” he said.

According to Zamir, the IDF must develop commanders who are properly trained to work with chareidi soldiers, ensuring that their religious commitments are respected while they fulfill their military responsibilities.

During the visit, Zamir also discussed the IDF’s new multiyear strategic plan, known as Hoshen, or Choshen, which he said encompasses 12 major areas of military development, corresponding to the 12 Shevatim.

“Each stone in the Hoshen is unique in itself, but only together do they create a complete whole. Especially in these days, we understand more than ever that only together will we prevail,” he said.

Additional details about the visit indicated that the Netzach organization, which operates the chareidi hesder network, has expanded significantly over the past 13 years. According to the organization, it now operates 18 yeshivos serving more than 1,000 bochurim, with hundreds participating in programs that combine learning and military enlistment.

Students from the network’s Yerushalayim branch also demonstrated advanced radar-based technology they developed, designed to improve battlefield mapping and assist autonomous military systems.

Addressing the IDF’s manpower requirements, Zamir said the October 7 attacks and the prolonged fighting that followed had demonstrated the need for a larger military force. He argued that the lessons of the war must include expanding the number of soldiers available for future operations.

Concluding his address, Zamir called for cooperation among different segments of Israeli society in meeting the country’s security challenges.

“We will stand together, fight together, and prevail together, with a sense of mission, faith in the justice of our cause and the importance of our task, and a deep commitment to the State of Israel,” the IDF chief said.

{Matzav.com}

Former Israeli minister Ron Dermer launched a blistering attack on conservative commentator Tucker Carlson on Tuesday, accusing him of benefiting financially from foreign interests that promote antisemitism and questioning whether his political activities are consistent with the America First principles he frequently champions.

Dermer, a longtime confidant of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and a prominent figure in Israeli-American relations, took aim at Carlson in a sharply worded social media statement, suggesting that the commentator’s public image as a defender of American interests is at odds with his alleged financial connections.

“Tucker Carlson claims he’s America First while making millions from foreign actors amplifying his antisemitism,” Dermer wrote.

Tucker Carlson claims he’s America First while making millions from foreign actors amplifying his antisemitism.
His followers are being played for fools. They’re Tucker’s Suckers. pic.twitter.com/ytRJAhG9LS

— Ron Dermer – רון דרמר (@AmbDermer) November 2, 2026

The former minister also directed his criticism at Carlson’s audience, arguing that supporters who accept his political messaging are being manipulated.

“His followers are being played for fools. They’re Tucker’s Suckers,” he added.

Dermer’s remarks come amid growing criticism of Carlson’s treatment of Israel and Jewish issues. The former Fox News host, who now operates an independent media platform, has repeatedly challenged American support for Israel and featured guests whose statements about Jews and Israel have provoked accusations of antisemitism.

The Anti-Defamation League has criticized Carlson for giving prominent exposure to figures including Nick Fuentes, Candace Owens, and Darryl Cooper, accusing him of helping bring antisemitic conspiracy theories into mainstream political discussion. Carlson has maintained that his interviews and criticism of Israel are consistent with his commitment to questioning American foreign policy.

Dermer’s allegation concerning foreign financial support was particularly pointed, although he did not identify the foreign parties involved or provide documentation establishing the financial arrangements he alleged.

The remarks also drew attention from conservative commentator Mark Levin, a frequent critic of Carlson, who circulated Dermer’s statement and praised the former Israeli official. The Republican Jewish Coalition likewise shared Dermer’s comments, signaling support for his criticism.

Dermer served as Israel’s ambassador to the United States from 2013 to 2021 and subsequently held senior ministerial positions under Netanyahu, including responsibility for strategic affairs and negotiations surrounding the release of Israeli hostages.

Since leaving government, Dermer has been speaking publicly about rising antisemitism and the challenges facing Jewish communities. His latest criticism of Carlson reflects an increasingly contentious debate within American conservative circles over Israel, antisemitism, foreign influence, and the meaning of the America First movement.

Approximately 1,400 Israeli passengers were evacuated from a cruise ship docked at the Greek island of Syros on Tuesday evening after authorities received an anonymous warning that an explosive device had been planted aboard the vessel or on a nearby pier.

The ship, operated by Israel’s Mano Maritime cruise company, was prevented from departing the port as Greek security personnel launched an investigation into the threat. Passengers were ordered off the vessel while authorities searched for suspicious objects and worked to determine whether the warning was credible.

The incident disrupted a weeklong cruise through the Greek islands, leaving hundreds of Israeli vacationers waiting for clearance to return to the ship and continue their journey home.

The vessel had been scheduled to leave Syros and begin an approximately 24-hour voyage to Israel’s Haifa Port, where it was expected to arrive Thursday morning. The security operation raised questions about whether the ship would be able to maintain its original schedule.

Greek coast guard officers, bomb-detection dogs, and divers were dispatched to inspect the ship, identified as the Crown Iris, which sails under the Panamanian flag and is operated by the Israeli cruise company. Authorities concentrated part of their search on the vessel’s hull after the anonymous warning reportedly claimed that an explosive device had been attached to its underwater section.

Greek authorities subsequently confirmed that the ship was carrying 940 passengers and 597 crew members, for a total of 1,537 people. Initial inspections uncovered no explosives or other suspicious objects, although officials ordered additional examinations before permitting the vessel to leave port.

A specialized underwater operations unit from the Greek Coast Guard was also assigned to conduct a more extensive inspection, with personnel expected to arrive later Tuesday evening.

Reports differed over whether passengers had been evacuated. While some initial accounts described passengers being taken ashore as a precaution, other reports, including information attributed to Mano Maritime, indicated that passengers remained aboard while the searches continued.

The company reportedly believed the warning was likely a false alarm, although Greek authorities continued treating the threat seriously until security checks could be completed.

The incident occurred amid heightened tensions surrounding Israeli tourism in Greece. The Crown Iris has previously encountered pro-Palestinian demonstrations at Greek ports, and another protest reportedly took place Tuesday in Ermoupoli, the principal town on Syros. Authorities had also prohibited a planned demonstration against the ship’s arrival. There was no immediate evidence connecting the bomb threat to those protests.

The security scare also coincided with a series of similar threats affecting European aviation. At least seven flights across Europe received bomb warnings Tuesday, forcing diversions, security inspections, and temporary disruptions at several airports. No explosive devices were discovered in those incidents.

As of the latest reports Tuesday evening, Greek authorities had not identified the individual responsible for the warning, and the Crown Iris was awaiting final security clearance to begin its return voyage to Haifa.

{Matzav.com}

The SAT has undergone sweeping changes over the past four decades that have substantially reduced its emphasis on advanced vocabulary, lengthy reading passages, and the ability to interpret complex written material, according to a new study from Johns Hopkins University. The findings are raising questions about whether the college admissions examination has become less academically demanding even as concerns mount over declining reading proficiency among American students.

The research, conducted by the Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy and commissioned by Thomas Aquinas College, examined SAT reading materials from 1980, 1987, and 2026. Researchers identified major differences in the structure and content of the examination, including dramatically shorter passages, fewer vocabulary questions requiring independent knowledge, and a reduced emphasis on interpreting persuasive and argumentative writing.

The report documented “extensive modifications to the SAT reading section over the past four decades,” concluding that the changes “diminish the emphasis on the students’ ability to read and analyze difficult texts.”

One of the most striking findings involved the length of reading selections. Passages appearing on the 2026 practice examinations were less than one-third as long as those used in the earlier tests. At the same time, questions requiring students to demonstrate their knowledge of vocabulary without relying on surrounding text fell from approximately 60 per examination to just 10.

The researchers also discovered a major change in the types of reading comprehension skills being assessed. Earlier versions of the SAT frequently required students to evaluate arguments, understand persuasive techniques, and interpret references that depended on background knowledge. Today’s examination relies much more heavily on explanatory passages that provide students with contextual information to help them determine the meaning of unfamiliar language.

The changes have prompted criticism from educators who believe that college-bound students should be expected to handle challenging literary works and demonstrate a substantial command of the English language.

“The makers of the SAT seem to believe that the ability to tackle long and complex literary works isn’t an important skill for college students anymore,” John Goyette, Vice President of Thomas Aquinas College, said in a statement. “Sadly, given the state of modern higher education, they’re probably right.”

The findings add to a broader debate over changes to standardized testing and academic expectations. Earlier generations of students were required to study extensive vocabulary lists and prepare for stand-alone antonym questions that tested their knowledge of words without offering contextual assistance. Those questions have since disappeared from the examination.

Although the Johns Hopkins researchers did not determine that the modern SAT is conclusively easier overall, they emphasized the educational significance of the changes, explaining that “the shift is significant because reading, vocabulary, and comprehension are mutually reinforcing.”

Other recent studies have also examined whether the examination’s difficulty has changed over time. A 2026 University of Cincinnati study used ChatGPT to evaluate SAT mathematics questions from different years and estimated that their difficulty had declined by 0.21 standard deviations compared with 2012. A separate artificial intelligence-based analysis of examinations dating back to 2011 suggested that questions began becoming less difficult around 2017.

Researchers have been studying changes in SAT scores and test difficulty for decades. Analyses dating to the 1970s examined shifts in student performance beginning in the 1960s, while later comparisons of examinations administered in 2005 and 2010 found increases in scores on certain sections.

The College Board, which administers the SAT, challenged the suggestion that shorter passages or revised question formats necessarily mean that students are taking an easier examination. In a response to the New York Post, the organization emphasized that the Johns Hopkins researchers had not established an overall decline in difficulty and pointed to evidence that shorter passages can still require sophisticated reading skills.

The organization also defended the examination’s scoring patterns, stating that “if it were true that the SAT is easier than it once was, we’d see changes in score distributions and the proportion of students earning top scores—which we don’t.”

The latest report provides additional details about how substantially the examination has been redesigned. The older tests contained 85 verbal questions, compared with 66 on the current practice examination. The 1980 and 1987 versions each included 45 analogy and antonym questions, categories that have disappeared entirely from today’s SAT. Modern questions also offer four possible answers instead of the five choices used in earlier versions.

The average length of reading passages has fallen from 304 words in 1980 and 340 words in 1987 to approximately 97 words in the 2026 practice test. Instead of requiring students to read longer selections and answer multiple questions about them, the newer format typically presents a brief passage followed by a single question.

However, the researchers identified one finding that complicates claims that the examination has simply been made easier. Their analysis found that the average measured complexity of the newer passages was actually higher than that of the older material. The researchers therefore characterized the changes as a shift in the skills being assessed rather than definitive evidence that the SAT has become easier.

Thomas Aquinas College, which has relied on SAT scores for more than five decades to evaluate prospective students, commissioned the research because of concerns about whether the examination still measures the abilities required for its demanding curriculum. The college places particular emphasis on reading and discussing major works of literature, philosophy, and other academic disciplines.

Goyette said the institution wanted to understand whether SAT scores remain a reliable indicator of students’ readiness for that kind of education. The researchers recommended a future study in which the same students would answer questions from both older and newer examinations, allowing investigators to compare their difficulty more directly.

The debate comes as educators nationwide grapple with declining reading performance, changing study habits, and concerns about students’ ability to concentrate on lengthy written material. The increasing prominence of digital media and short-form online content has intensified questions about whether schools and colleges are adapting their expectations to students’ abilities or adequately preparing students to meet more demanding academic standards.

{Matzav.com}

A surprising political scenario is emerging in Israel following last week’s inconclusive Knesset elections: the chareidi parties could find themselves outside the next government while still securing passage of legislation protecting yeshiva bochurim from military draft sanctions.

The possibility was raised Monday night by Mishpacha editor Aryeh Erlich during an interview with Avi Mimran on Kol Chai Radio, as political leaders explore potential coalition arrangements amid the continuing deadlock.

Erlich suggested that one of the most practical outcomes for the chareidi community could be a national unity government involving Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Gadi Eisenkot, with Shas and United Torah Judaism remaining in the opposition but negotiating an agreement to resolve the longstanding military draft crisis.

Such an arrangement, he argued, could allow the chareidi parties to achieve their central legislative objective without assuming responsibility for the government’s broader policies or becoming embroiled in the political controversies that would accompany coalition membership.

The discussion comes as opposition leaders reconsider their political options following election results that left neither major bloc with an obvious path to a parliamentary majority.

Erlich pointed to the position taken by Yisrael Beiteinu chairman Avigdor Lieberman, who has ruled out joining a government headed by Netanyahu while also rejecting reliance on Arab parties.

According to Erlich’s calculations, those restrictions leave the opposition with a narrow potential route to power: cooperation with the chareidi factions.

“The entire change bloc has 48 seats,” Erlich explained. “Add the 13 seats of United Torah Judaism and Shas, and you reach exactly 61 seats — a theoretical coalition of the change bloc and the chareidim without the Arab parties.”

The arithmetic places the chareidi parties in a potentially influential position despite the difficult election results for Shas, which emerged with six seats compared with UTJ’s seven.

However, Erlich acknowledged that joining forces with parties traditionally associated with the anti-Netanyahu camp would present serious difficulties for chareidi voters and their political representatives.

He noted that many religious and traditional Israelis have stood alongside the chareidi community during years of political conflict, making any arrangement that effectively sidelines the broader right-wing bloc an emotionally painful prospect.

At the same time, Erlich argued that loyalty to the religious electorate should not automatically translate into unconditional political support for Netanyahu, particularly given the government’s inability to resolve the draft crisis.

He cited the recent arrest of a chareidi chosson during his sheva brachos celebrations as an especially painful example of the consequences of the unresolved situation.

According to Erlich, the incident intensified frustration over years of political assurances that failed to produce effective protections for yeshiva students.

He also warned that any draft legislation advanced by a government including the chareidi parties would inevitably attract fierce criticism, both from within the chareidi community and from opponents of exemptions for yeshiva students.

Against that background, Erlich suggested that remaining outside the government might provide a more effective route toward securing an acceptable agreement.

Under his proposed scenario, Netanyahu and Eisenkot would establish a unity coalition without Shas and UTJ, while the chareidi parties would negotiate support for legislation addressing the status of full-time Torah learners and removing the financial and legal penalties currently affecting them.

Erlich described such an outcome as both realistic and preferable to some of the other arrangements under discussion.

He also drew attention to what he characterized as a remarkable change in the language used by Israeli political commentators when discussing the draft issue.

During the election campaign, critics frequently referred to proposed legislation protecting yeshiva students as a “draft evasion law,” a term intended to portray the measure as an attempt to excuse widespread noncompliance with military service requirements.

Now, Erlich observed, as opposition politicians explore the possibility of cooperation with the chareidi parties, that terminology has begun to disappear from political discussions.

Instead, he said, commentators have returned to using the more neutral description of a military draft law.

Erlich viewed the shift as evidence that the political atmosphere surrounding the issue was changing as parties confronted the practical difficulties of assembling a governing majority.

Nevertheless, he cautioned that the various coalition possibilities remain theoretical, with significant political and ideological obstacles standing in the way of any agreement.

In his assessment, the two most plausible outcomes at this stage are a national unity government formed without the chareidi parties or another round of elections if political leaders cannot overcome their differences.

{Matzav.com}