Feed aggregator

Israeli police arrested three suspects in the Negev on Tuesday in connection with an alleged election bribery operation, seizing tens of thousands of shekels in cash amid suspicions that the money was intended to purchase votes for the Arab Ra’am party in Israel’s Knesset election.

The arrests followed an investigation by the Southern District Police’s central investigative unit into suspected attempts to influence voters through illegal cash payments.

According to police, the suspects, residents of Bedouin communities in southern Israel, were apprehended during an operation carried out overnight Monday into Tuesday, as voting began across the country.

Investigators searched locations associated with the suspects and discovered envelopes containing substantial amounts of cash, along with materials believed to be connected to election activity.

Police said the money was suspected of being earmarked for distribution to voters in exchange for their support at the ballot box.

The suspects were taken into custody for questioning, with investigators examining the source of the funds, the intended recipients and whether additional individuals were involved in the alleged scheme.

The investigation focused on communities in the vicinity of Segev Shalom and Arara in the Negev, where police suspected efforts were underway to influence voting through financial inducements.

The arrests came as Israeli authorities maintained heightened vigilance over potential election offenses, including bribery, intimidation and attempts to interfere with the voting process.

The investigation was being handled by the Southern District Fraud Unit, which was expected to bring the three suspects before a judge Tuesday and request extensions of their detention.

Police said the operation was part of a broader effort to safeguard the integrity of the election and prevent individuals or organized groups from illegally influencing voters.

The case quickly became a political controversy after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly addressed the arrests, describing the discovery of cash and Ra’am voting materials as a serious election-day incident.

Netanyahu called for a thorough investigation and urged authorities to ensure that the election was conducted fairly.

Ra’am, headed by Mansour Abbas, rejected the implications of the police operation and filed a formal complaint with the Central Elections Committee.

The party claimed that its activists had been singled out for enforcement action without sufficient justification and accused political opponents of attempting to damage its electoral prospects.

Ra’am also reported separate incidents involving missing or damaged party voting slips in Arab communities, including Nazareth and Shefa-Amr.

Party representatives alleged that the arrests and voting-slip complaints were part of an effort to suppress support for Ra’am, which was seeking to strengthen its representation in the next Knesset.

Those allegations have not been independently substantiated, and police have not announced evidence linking the suspected bribery operation to Ra’am’s national leadership.

The controversy comes amid unusually high voter turnout across Israel, including significant participation in Arab communities, where political parties have intensified their efforts to bring supporters to polling stations.

Ra’am is considered a potentially important player in post-election coalition negotiations, particularly if neither the right-wing bloc nor the opposition secures a clear parliamentary majority.

Israeli election law prohibits offering money, gifts or other benefits in exchange for votes, with such conduct treated as a criminal offense because of its potential to compromise the independence of the electoral process.

Investigators are now seeking to determine whether the seized cash was actually intended for vote-buying, whether any money had already been distributed and whether other individuals were involved.

As of Tuesday afternoon, the three suspects remained under investigation. No convictions had been reported, and authorities had not established that voters had actually received payments or changed their votes.

The arrests nevertheless added another controversy to an already contentious election day, with police pledging to pursue suspected electoral offenses regardless of the political affiliation of those involved.

Israel’s first election exit polls Tuesday night projected that United Torah Judaism would retain seven seats in the 26th Knesset, while Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s right-wing and chareidi bloc would fall short of the 61 seats required to form a government.

The initial Channel 13 exit poll, released following the closing of polling stations at 10 p.m., gave United Torah Judaism seven mandates, matching its representation in the outgoing Knesset. The projection came after a tense Election Day during which party officials repeatedly warned that record voter turnout and competition from alternative chareidi lists could threaten the faction’s seventh seat.

The same exit poll projected 50 seats for Netanyahu’s bloc, compared with 53 for the opposition parties associated with Gadi Eisenkot. The two Arab parties were projected to win a combined 17 seats, leaving neither of the principal political blocs with an outright parliamentary majority.

According to Channel 13’s initial projection, Likud emerged as the largest individual party with 25 seats, followed closely by Eisenkot’s Yashar party with 23.

The complete Channel 13 exit poll projected the following distribution of the Knesset’s 120 seats:

Political party Projected seats Likud — Binyamin Netanyahu 25 Yashar — Gadi Eisenkot 23 B’Yachad — Naftali Bennett 14 Joint Arab List 10 Democrats — Yair Golan 9 United Torah Judaism 7 Shas — Aryeh Deri 6 Ra’am — Mansour Abbas 7 Yisrael Beytenu — Avigdor Lieberman 7 Otzma Yehudit — Itamar Ben Gvir 6 Religious Zionism–Zehut — Bezalel Smotrich 6 Total 120

The projections would leave Netanyahu’s bloc with 50 seats, including Likud, Shas, United Torah Judaism, Otzma Yehudit, and Religious Zionism–Zehut. The four principal opposition parties would collectively hold 53 seats, with the Arab parties accounting for the remaining 17.

For United Torah Judaism, the projection represents an important development following concerns throughout the day that unusually high participation elsewhere in the country could increase the number of votes needed to maintain its existing parliamentary strength.

In the 2022 election, UTJ received 280,194 votes and secured seven seats. Political estimates circulating Tuesday suggested that the party might require approximately 314,000 votes to retain that representation if nationwide turnout reached unusually high levels.

The Channel 13 exit poll indicates that UTJ may have retained its seventh mandate despite those concerns. However, the projection remains preliminary, and the final allocation will depend on the official count, including special double-envelope ballots.

Shas, meanwhile, was projected to receive six seats in the Channel 13 poll, compared with the 11 seats it won in the 2022 election. Such a result, if confirmed, would represent a substantial reduction in the party’s parliamentary representation.

The Channel 13 projection also showed that the smaller parties Amcha Yisrael and the Reservists–Economic Party had failed to cross the 3.25% electoral threshold. Their exclusion would affect the distribution of Knesset seats among the parties that qualified for representation.

The projections also illustrate how the record voter turnout has affected the political landscape. By 8 p.m., 74.3% of eligible Israelis had already voted, surpassing the final participation rate in the 2022 election.

The high turnout prompted intense concern among chareidi political leaders throughout the day, with activists from Shas and United Torah Judaism conducting extensive last-minute voter mobilization efforts.

Prime Minister Netanyahu also issued a special appeal to chareidi voters Tuesday evening, warning that a government supported by Mansour Abbas and Ra’am could have serious consequences for the yeshiva world.

The initial exit poll does not resolve the question of who will form Israel’s next government. Although the opposition parties associated with Eisenkot are projected to hold more seats than Netanyahu’s bloc, neither grouping reaches the 61-seat majority required to govern independently.

The Arab parties, projected to control 17 seats, could therefore become an important factor in the political negotiations that follow the election.

The Channel 13 results also represent a significant change from the final pre-election surveys, particularly for Likud, which was projected to receive 19 seats in the network’s October 23 poll but 25 in Tuesday night’s exit poll.

For UTJ, the difference is smaller but politically significant. Channel 13’s final pre-election survey had projected eight seats for the party, while its election-night exit poll reduced that figure to seven.

Other television networks, including Channels 11, 12, and 14, also released exit polls Tuesday night. Their complete party-by-party election-night projections were not yet independently verified in the information available for this report, so the figures above reflect the confirmed Channel 13 projection rather than a composite of the networks.

The official vote count is now underway, with preliminary results expected to emerge throughout the night. Additional ballots, including those cast by soldiers and other voters using special double envelopes, will be counted separately.

The final allocation of seats could change as those votes are included, particularly for parties whose projected totals are close to the threshold for an additional mandate.

For United Torah Judaism, the immediate election-night projection is seven seats, but the party’s final representation will not be established until the Central Elections Committee completes the count.

Israel recorded its highest Election Day turnout in decades Tuesday, with more than 5.4 million voters casting ballots by 8 p.m., as political parties scrambled to mobilize remaining supporters and the Central Elections Committee rejected a request to extend voting hours beyond the scheduled 10 p.m. closing time.

According to figures released by the Central Elections Committee, 74.3% of eligible voters, representing 5,449,277 Israelis, had participated by 8 p.m. The figure was the highest recorded at that hour since 1988 and reflected an extraordinary level of voter participation in the election for Israel’s 26th Knesset.

The turnout represented an increase of 8.3 percentage points over the corresponding hour in the November 2022 election, when 66% of eligible voters had cast their ballots. It also exceeded the final turnout of 70.63% recorded in that election, even with two hours of voting still remaining.

Although the pace of voting slowed somewhat during the evening, the unusually high participation intensified concerns among political parties about the final distribution of Knesset seats, particularly as the number of votes required to cross the electoral threshold continued to rise.

The surge in turnout also prompted an unusual dispute over whether polling stations should remain open beyond their scheduled closing time.

Likud formally petitioned Central Elections Committee chairman Justice Noam Sohlberg to extend voting hours, arguing that lengthy lines at polling stations were preventing some Israelis from exercising their right to vote.

Shas and Otzma Yehudit joined the request, while the Yashar party, headed by Gadi Eisenkot, opposed the proposed extension.

After considering the matter, the leadership of the Central Elections Committee rejected the appeal, determining that high turnout and long lines did not justify a nationwide extension of voting hours.

The committee emphasized, however, that voters who were already waiting in line before the official 10 p.m. deadline would be permitted to cast their ballots even if the voting process continued beyond that hour.

An individual exception was granted in Chevron, where voting hours were extended until 10 p.m. following an electricity outage that disrupted operations at a polling station.

Meanwhile, chareidi political organizations intensified their efforts to bring supporters to the polls, with Shas and United Torah Judaism activists issuing increasingly urgent appeals throughout the evening.

Party leaders had expressed concern earlier in the day that voter complacency in traditional chareidi strongholds could result in lost parliamentary representation, particularly as turnout climbed in Arab communities and areas associated with Israel’s center-left parties.

Videos circulating Tuesday evening showed activists making dramatic appeals to residents, including cries of “Gevald” and the sounding of shofars in an effort to draw attention to the approaching voting deadline.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu also intervened personally, recording a special message for readers of the chareidi news outlet B’Chadrei Chareidim in which he warned that a change of government could have serious consequences for the chareidi community and the yeshiva world.

Netanyahu cautioned against the possibility of an opposition-led government supported by Mansour Abbas and his Ra’am party, arguing that such a coalition could fundamentally alter government policy toward the chareidi population.

“There will be persecution of chareidim the likes of which has never been seen before,” Netanyahu warned.

The prime minister’s remarks were part of a series of Election Day messages in which he expressed concern over voter participation in Arab communities and urged supporters of the right-wing bloc to take part in the election.

Netanyahu also criticized voters who were considering staying home because of dissatisfaction with the political situation, portraying the election as consequential for the future of the country’s Jewish character and the institutions of the Torah world.

Attention has also turned to the smaller political parties competing near Israel’s 3.25% electoral threshold. Because the threshold is calculated as a percentage of valid votes, the exceptionally high turnout increases the absolute number of ballots needed for a party to enter the Knesset.

Political pollster Shlomo Filber suggested Tuesday evening that the results could contain a surprise involving a party that had not previously been regarded as being in danger of failing to cross the threshold.

Filber did not identify the party or disclose figures from the exit poll, leaving political observers to await the first projections after voting concludes.

The increased participation could also affect the number of votes required for established parties to retain their current parliamentary representation. United Torah Judaism, in particular, has been monitoring the figures closely amid concerns about competing chareidi political lists and dissatisfaction among some traditional supporters.

The nationwide turnout has climbed steadily throughout the day. By 2 p.m., 44.9% of eligible Israelis had voted, rising to 55.7% at 4 p.m. and 66.7% at 6 p.m. By 8 p.m., the figure had reached 74.3%, surpassing the total participation recorded in the previous election.

The country has 7,331,981 eligible voters, with 36 political parties competing for seats in the 120-member Knesset. More than 12,000 regular polling stations were established across Israel, along with special voting arrangements for soldiers, hospital patients, prisoners, and other eligible voters unable to cast ballots at their usual polling locations.

The Central Elections Committee also issued new instructions Tuesday concerning damaged or irregular ballot slips, following complaints about missing, concealed, or defective voting papers at several polling stations.

Under the directive issued by the committee’s leadership, election workers were instructed not to automatically disqualify a ballot simply because it contained a defect. Instead, officials must determine whether the voter’s intended choice can still be clearly identified.

Minor holes, dirt, printing imperfections, and other technical defects do not necessarily invalidate a vote. However, ballots bearing marks that could identify the voter must be evaluated separately under the applicable election regulations.

The clarification was intended to prevent legitimate votes from being discarded over minor irregularities while preserving the legal requirements governing ballot secrecy and election integrity.

Separately, an alleged confrontation involving election activists was reported Tuesday evening in Bat Yam.

Deputy Mayor Kati Piasecki and activists affiliated with the Democrats party claimed they were assaulted while participating in election-related activities near a school in the city.

According to their account, a group of young people directed insults at them, and one individual attempted to physically attack Piasecki. A complaint was subsequently filed with police.

The allegations were reported as authorities continued monitoring election-related incidents across the country.

In southern Israel, severe weather created additional difficulties for some voters, as flooding and road closures disrupted travel in parts of the Arava region.

Closures along Highway 90 and other routes left some residents unable to return home, with several expressing concern that they would not reach their assigned polling stations before voting ended.

Residents of the Neot Hakikar area appealed for accommodations, arguing that circumstances beyond their control were preventing them from exercising their voting rights.

The weather-related disruptions added to the logistical challenges facing election officials during a day already marked by unusually heavy participation and lengthy lines at polling stations.

The first television exit polls were scheduled for release at 10 p.m., immediately after the closing of most polling stations. Israeli television networks were preparing to publish their initial projections of the next Knesset’s composition, although those figures would remain estimates rather than official results.

The actual counting of ballots was expected to begin immediately after voting concluded, with results transmitted to the Central Elections Committee throughout the night.

Election officials cautioned that the final distribution of Knesset seats could remain uncertain even after the first exit polls and preliminary results became available.

One major factor is the counting of special double-envelope ballots, which include votes cast by soldiers, reservists, and other eligible Israelis voting outside their regular polling stations.

An estimated 600,000 to 650,000 such ballots could require separate verification and counting, a process expected to continue over the following days.

Because those votes can affect both the electoral threshold and the distribution of parliamentary seats, closely contested races may remain unresolved until the additional ballots are included.

Election authorities indicated that the count could continue through Thursday and potentially into Friday morning, depending on the volume of ballots requiring verification.

The unusually high turnout has introduced additional uncertainty into an election already characterized by intense competition among the major political blocs and concerns about the fate of smaller parties.

For the chareidi parties, the immediate question is whether their final mobilization efforts will translate into sufficient votes to maintain their parliamentary strength. For the broader political system, attention is focused on how the record participation will affect the balance of power in the next Knesset.

With the voting deadline approaching and millions of ballots already cast, Israel is heading toward the first results of an election marked by exceptional voter participation, last-minute political appeals, and considerable uncertainty over the composition of the country’s next government.

Complaints about missing voting slips for independent chareidi parties surfaced at several Israeli polling stations on Tuesday, prompting accusations of election interference as the country’s closely contested Knesset election entered its final hours.

Supporters of two breakaway chareidi factions reported difficulties locating their parties’ ballot slips, with some alleging that the slips had been deliberately removed from voting booths to prevent supporters from casting their ballots.

The complaints centered on the Chareidi Public Party, headed by Moti Leitner, and Tzeva Shachor, another independent faction seeking to attract voters dissatisfied with the established chareidi parties.

Both parties have campaigned amid growing frustration over the military draft controversy, including the arrests of yeshiva bochurim and the failure of the outgoing government to enact legislation addressing the status of full-time Torah learners.

According to a report carried by Kan, voters in Bnei Brak complained that ballot slips for the Chareidi Public Party were missing from certain polling stations.

One voter described how his wife arrived at a polling station intending to support the party but was unable to find its voting slips among those displayed inside the booth.

She reportedly approached election officials, who subsequently located the missing slips and made them available.

The incident raised concerns among party supporters that voters unfamiliar with election procedures might simply leave without casting their intended ballot if they could not locate the appropriate slip.

Separately, Yaakov Chaim Miller, chairman of Tzeva Shachor, released a video alleging that voting slips bearing his party’s identifying letters, Ner, were disappearing from polling stations.

Miller claimed that the problem was occurring at multiple locations and urged supporters to remain vigilant when entering voting booths.

His allegations added to the already heated atmosphere surrounding the participation of independent chareidi parties in the election.

The allegations were not limited to the two chareidi factions.

Other political parties, including Gadi Eisenkot’s Yashar party and the Reservists and Economic Party headed by Yoaz Hendel and Yaron Zelekha, also reported missing or damaged voting slips at polling stations across the country.

Some parties complained that their slips had been marked with pens or otherwise defaced, raising concerns that ballots could be disqualified during the counting process.

In one complaint, Hendel accused Likud of responsibility for efforts to interfere with his party’s vote, although no independent evidence establishing that accusation was presented.

Eisenkot’s party similarly demanded that election officials conduct frequent inspections of voting booths and immediately replace any missing or damaged slips.

The Chareidi Public Party subsequently reported a broader pattern of alleged interference. Civilian election monitors recorded 23 complaints involving 20 polling stations in Yerushalayim, Bnei Brak and Modi’in Illit between 7:56 a.m. and 2:07 p.m.

According to the monitors, entire bundles of the party’s voting slips, bearing the letters Zakh, were either removed or concealed beneath slips belonging to other parties. Some complaints concerned repeated incidents at the same polling station.

The party also alleged that campaign information stands had been vandalized outside polling stations in Bnei Brak, Beit Shemesh and Beitar Illit. Party representatives said complaints had been submitted to police and the Central Elections Committee.

Leitner accused unidentified activists of attempting to intimidate his supporters and interfere with their ability to vote.

The allegations of intimidation and deliberate interference have not been independently established.

Israel’s Central Elections Committee responded to the growing number of complaints by stating that it had found no indication of systematic ballot tampering.

“Contrary to claims circulating online, at this stage there are no indications of systematic damage to ballot slips,” the committee said.

Officials emphasized that individual complaints were being investigated and addressed as they arose, while urging voters to rely on official election information rather than unverified reports circulating on social media.

The committee also issued guidance concerning the validity of ballot slips, explaining that unusual markings can potentially invalidate a vote if they allow the voter to be identified.

However, officials clarified that not every damaged or marked slip is automatically disqualified, and that election authorities may consider the circumstances in determining whether a ballot remains valid.

Voters who discover that their preferred party’s slips are missing are instructed to notify polling-station officials and request replacements before casting their ballots.

The controversy comes amid an exceptionally tense election for Israel’s chareidi parties, with United Torah Judaism and Shas fighting to maintain their parliamentary strength while independent factions attempt to attract dissatisfied voters.

The military draft controversy has played a central role in the campaign, with arrests of yeshiva bochurim and the failure to enact draft legislation fueling criticism of the established political leadership.

Senior Gedolei Yisroel have repeatedly warned against supporting breakaway parties that are unlikely to cross the electoral threshold, arguing that such votes could weaken the Torah community’s representation in the Knesset.

The independent factions, meanwhile, have accused the established parties of attempting to silence opposition and prevent voters from expressing their dissatisfaction at the ballot box.

With turnout reaching unusually high levels nationwide, the complaints added another layer of controversy to an election already marked by intense political and communal divisions.

Election officials have stressed that all voters must be able to cast their ballots freely and that reports of missing or damaged slips should be brought immediately to polling-station personnel.

As voting continued Tuesday, authorities had not established that the reported incidents were part of a coordinated effort to manipulate the election. Nevertheless, the complaints prompted demands for increased oversight and heightened scrutiny of voting procedures in several chareidi population centers.

First Lady Melania Trump announced Tuesday that a ceasefire between Russian and Ukrainian forces had gone into effect earlier than originally planned, establishing a humanitarian corridor intended to protect civilians and permit urgently needed relief supplies to reach Oleshky, a Russian-occupied city in Ukraine’s Kherson region.

The temporary truce began at 4 a.m. Moscow time on October 27, two days ahead of its scheduled implementation, according to the first lady. The agreement also reportedly covers a broader geographic area than initially planned, allowing humanitarian convoys to travel through additional territory.

Melania Trump disclosed the development in a message posted on X, announcing that the arrangement had already taken effect.

“THE CEASEFIRE HAS COMMENCED,” she wrote.

She explained that the earlier start was intended to address urgent humanitarian concerns and reduce the danger facing residents in the affected region.

“The timing was accelerated two days ahead of schedule to protect the safety of civilians and to facilitate the delivery of critical humanitarian aid,” she stated.

The announcement represents a potentially significant humanitarian development in the continuing Russia-Ukraine war, particularly for civilians living in Russian-controlled territory where access to essential supplies and services has been severely disrupted by the fighting.

Oleshky, situated on the eastern bank of the Dnipro River across from the Ukrainian-controlled city of Kherson, has remained under Russian occupation since the early stages of the full-scale invasion in 2022. Its location near the front lines has complicated humanitarian operations and exposed residents to the continuing dangers of the conflict.

According to the first lady, the ceasefire arrangements have been extended beyond Oleshky itself, creating a wider area through which humanitarian vehicles can move. The expanded coverage is intended to reduce the risk to aid workers and civilians as relief deliveries are organized.

Melania Trump also said that General Valery Gerasimov, chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, had confirmed the ceasefire.

However, her announcement did not specify the precise boundaries of the expanded humanitarian zone, the procedures for monitoring compliance, or the arrangements governing the movement of relief convoys. It also did not establish whether Ukrainian authorities had formally confirmed the same terms.

The ceasefire follows an agreement announced by the White House on October 23, when the first lady revealed that she had helped secure a temporary suspension of hostilities after working directly with representatives of both governments. The original arrangement called for the cessation of military activity to begin October 29, with the humanitarian operation proceeding in stages.

The White House said the first lady had served as an intermediary between Moscow and Kyiv, helping coordinate the timing, operational procedures, and conditions necessary for humanitarian workers to enter the city and assist residents who wished to leave.

The scale of the humanitarian emergency is substantial. Before Russia’s invasion in 2022, Oleshky had approximately 24,000 residents. According to White House estimates, only 1,700 to 2,000 people remain, most of them elderly, along with approximately 50 children.

Many of those still living in the city have been unable to evacuate because of ongoing military operations, dangerous roads, landmines, and the threat of drone attacks. Residents have faced severe shortages of food, drinking water, medicine, electricity, and other essential supplies.

The destruction of the Kakhovka Dam in June 2023 compounded the city’s difficulties, flooding large portions of Oleshky and causing extensive damage to homes and infrastructure. The White House estimated that approximately 90% of the city’s territory was affected by flooding.

In announcing the original agreement last week, Melania Trump described the situation as a humanitarian emergency requiring immediate international intervention.

“The situation in Oleshky is dire. Oleshky is a front-line war city on the brink of disaster. Oleshky’s remaining population is comprised primarily of elderly residents who urgently need medical attention, medicine, food, and clean water,” she said.

The first lady explained that the operation would involve civilian representatives from Russia and Ukraine working together to assess the needs of residents and arrange transportation for those seeking evacuation. She also said an independent American media organization would accompany the teams to document the operation and help ensure that residents’ wishes were respected.

Ukrainian human rights commissioner Dmytro Lubinets confirmed Tuesday that the ceasefire had begun at 3 a.m. Kyiv time, corresponding to 4 a.m. in Moscow. Russia’s Defense Ministry separately announced that its forces had stopped shelling in the direction of Oleshky.

Ukrainian negotiator Davyd Arakhamia said the humanitarian ceasefire was scheduled to remain in effect until 10:59 p.m. on November 1, providing several days for relief deliveries and civilian evacuations.

The operation is expected to prioritize medical assistance, food, drinking water, and the evacuation of residents unable to remain safely in the city. Ukrainian officials have emphasized that the process will be complicated by damaged infrastructure, dangerous terrain, and the extensive preparations required to move civilians through an active conflict zone.

Questions also remain about evacuation routes and destinations. Reports indicate that some residents could initially be transported through Russian-controlled territory, including Crimea, before being given the opportunity to travel to Ukrainian-controlled areas. The arrangements have raised concerns about ensuring that civilians can freely choose their destinations.

The ceasefire is limited to Oleshky and surrounding portions of the Kherson region and does not represent a broader suspension of the war. Russian attacks continued elsewhere in Ukraine on Tuesday, including missile and drone strikes that caused civilian casualties and damaged infrastructure.

The humanitarian agreement comes as Washington continues diplomatic efforts aimed at ending the wider conflict. Additional negotiations involving American, Russian, and Ukrainian representatives are expected in Abu Dhabi in early November, although substantial differences remain between Moscow and Kyiv over the terms of any lasting settlement.

For Melania Trump, the Oleshky initiative represents an expansion of her involvement in humanitarian diplomacy related to the war. The first lady has previously participated in efforts to reunite Ukrainian children separated from their families, with the White House reporting six reunification operations involving 34 children.

The administration said the humanitarian crisis in Oleshky was brought to her attention during a private discussion at her Fostering the Future Together event in New York City during the United Nations General Assembly. She subsequently used existing contacts with Russian and Ukrainian officials to begin arranging the temporary ceasefire.

The immediate test of the agreement will be whether humanitarian organizations can safely reach residents and whether both militaries maintain the promised suspension of hostilities throughout the designated area.

Although the arrangement is geographically limited and temporary, its implementation marks an unusual instance of direct humanitarian coordination between Russia and Ukraine during a war that has continued for more than four years.

For the remaining residents of Oleshky, many of whom have endured years of isolation, shortages, and constant danger, the ceasefire offers an opportunity to receive desperately needed assistance or leave the devastated city.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul received the lowest score of any governor in the United States in a newly released assessment of government policies and individual liberty, placing 50th out of 50 governors in the Cato Institute’s 2026 Freedom in the 50 States report. The Democratic governor earned an F grade and a score of just 18.02%, while New York itself finished next to last in the organization’s nationwide ranking of economic and personal freedoms.

The findings, released as Hochul sought another term in office, placed her behind every other sitting governor in the study’s evaluation of how executive decisions and policies affected individual liberty. The results immediately drew attention in New York, where the governor was campaigning for reelection against Republican Bruce Blakeman.

The Cato Institute, a Washington-based libertarian research organization, evaluates state laws and government policies according to its own framework for measuring economic and personal freedom. Its rankings reflect the organization’s policy priorities and methodology rather than an official government assessment of gubernatorial performance.

The 2026 edition marked the first time the institute included a separate evaluation of individual governors, examining the extent to which their actions in office advanced or restricted the freedoms measured by the study.

Hochul’s 18.02% score placed her below the governors of Hawaii, California, Rhode Island and Massachusetts, all of whom also finished near the bottom of the gubernatorial rankings.

New York’s performance in the broader state rankings was similarly poor under Cato’s criteria. The Empire State received an overall freedom score of 31.9%, ranking 49th nationally and finishing ahead of only Hawaii, which received 29.24%.

The study examined a wide range of state policies, including taxation, government spending, housing regulations, occupational licensing, education, firearms laws, freedom of expression, medical regulations and other areas affecting economic activity and personal choices.

Each state was assessed according to how its laws and policies aligned with the institute’s definition of individual liberty, with results expressed as percentage scores.

The distinction between the two rankings was significant. The state rankings measured the cumulative effects of laws and regulations in each jurisdiction, while the gubernatorial rankings focused on decisions attributed to the governors themselves.

That approach allowed the researchers to evaluate an incumbent governor separately from the broader legal and regulatory environment inherited from previous administrations.

The study also revealed that political affiliation did not entirely determine the results, even though Republican governors generally occupied more of the leading positions and Democrats were more heavily represented near the bottom.

Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte, a Republican, finished first among governors with a score of 62.31% and an A grade.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, placed second, demonstrating that the institute’s assessment was not simply a ranking of governors by party affiliation.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis secured third place with 52.61%, followed by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott in fourth with 50.67%.

The overall state rankings also produced some results that did not follow conventional partisan divisions.

Arizona, governed by Democrat Katie Hobbs despite having supported President Trump in the 2024 presidential election, ranked first in the nation for overall freedom under Cato’s methodology.

Montana finished second, Nevada placed third, and Florida came in fourth.

At the other end of the rankings, Alabama, South Carolina and Alaska were among the 10 lowest-scoring states, despite their generally Republican political orientation.

Two Republican governors also appeared among the lowest-ranked governors, further illustrating that the institute’s evaluations were based on its assessment of particular policies rather than party labels alone.

Nevertheless, the overall distribution showed Republican officeholders performing better in many of the categories emphasized by Cato, while Democratic governors were more frequently assigned lower scores.

The timing of the report added another dimension to its release. New Yorkers had already begun casting early ballots in the gubernatorial election, with Election Day scheduled for November 3.

Hochul was seeking reelection against Blakeman, the Nassau County executive and Republican gubernatorial nominee, in a contest that had featured disagreements over immigration enforcement, crime, taxation and the direction of state government.

A poll released the previous week showed Hochul receiving approximately 55% support compared with 41% for Blakeman, a lead of roughly 14 percentage points at that point in the campaign. Those figures represented a snapshot of voter preferences rather than the election’s final outcome.

The governor had also appeared alongside New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani at a campaign event at Medgar Evers College in Brooklyn on Sunday, October 25, where the two Democrats criticized Trump and Blakeman.

Hochul’s office rejected the conclusions of the Cato study, arguing that the institute’s definition of freedom favored policies the administration believed would harm workers, families and public safety.

“Cato’s idea of freedom means lower wages for hard working Americans, carrying guns without permits, AI chatbots running unchecked and social media giants gaining unfettered access to our kids,” a spokesperson told the New York Post.

The administration also challenged the significance of the failing grade, maintaining that policies intended to protect consumers and promote economic fairness should not be characterized as restrictions on liberty.

“If standing up for economic fairness and commonsense safety earns New York an F, that says more about the grader than the Governor.”

The competing interpretations highlighted a fundamental disagreement over what government freedom should mean. Cato’s libertarian framework generally favors fewer restrictions on individual choices and economic activity, while Hochul’s administration defended regulatory protections that it considered necessary for public welfare.

Additional details from the institute’s published methodology showed that the 2026 report examined 97 public-policy measures divided among 10 categories. Four categories concerned economic freedom, accounting for 40% of the overall score, while six addressed personal freedom, accounting for the remaining 60%.

The researchers evaluated fiscal burdens, housing rules, occupational regulations, technology and consumer policies, education, speech, medical choices, firearms, policing and recreational activities.

For governors, the researchers went beyond the existing policies of each state by examining legislation signed or vetoed during their administrations. Governors received additional points for actions the institute considered supportive of freedom and deductions for decisions it classified as restrictive.

The methodology also accounted for the fact that governors inherit laws and regulations enacted before taking office. As a result, the gubernatorial scores were intended to measure changes attributable to each governor rather than simply assigning responsibility for every existing state policy.

The underlying data were generally current through August 1, 2026, although the institute acknowledged that some measures relied on different reporting periods.

The organization also cautioned that its list of freedoms was not exhaustive and said it planned to continue updating the index every two years.

The latest findings represented a change from the previous edition of the study, published in 2023, which used a different scoring system and included more than 230 policy variables. Because the methodology was substantially revised, direct comparisons between scores from the two editions require caution.

The institute’s own analysis also noted that no state achieved a raw score above 75% in either of the two broad categories of economic or personal freedom, suggesting that even the states receiving favorable grades did not satisfy every criterion used in the report.

For New York, the study delivered two separate findings: The state’s existing policy environment placed it 49th nationally, and Hochul’s individual record received the lowest gubernatorial score under the institute’s methodology.

The governor’s office, meanwhile, maintained that the policies criticized by Cato reflected deliberate choices to prioritize economic protections and public safety.

The report therefore added another issue to the final days of New York’s gubernatorial campaign, offering critics of the administration a new assessment of its record while prompting a forceful rebuttal from Hochul’s office over the meaning of individual freedom and the proper role of state government.

{Matzav.com}

A potentially significant development emerged within the Peleg Yerushalmi on Tuesday as HaPeles, the newspaper associated with the movement, published an election-day front page that appeared to signal a departure from its longstanding opposition to participation in Knesset elections.

Rather than prominently reiterating the traditional call to boycott the vote, the newspaper devoted considerable attention to the independent chareidi party Tzeva Shachor and what it described as a growing wave of protest voting against the established chareidi political parties.

The unusual presentation immediately drew attention in chareidi political circles, where the Peleg Yerushalmi has long been identified with opposition to the electoral system and fierce criticism of the established chareidi parties over their handling of the military draft issue.

For years, HaPeles has prominently featured the position of the late Rav Shmuel Auerbach, who opposed participation in Knesset elections. His position became a defining element of the movement’s political identity, with adherents generally refraining from voting rather than supporting the established chareidi parties.

Tuesday’s front page, however, departed from that familiar approach.

Instead of emphasizing the traditional boycott, the newspaper highlighted the activities of Tzeva Shachor, a breakaway chareidi faction campaigning against United Torah Judaism and Shas.

The coverage accused the established chareidi parties of attempting to suppress support for the independent faction and discourage dissatisfied voters from casting ballots for it.

The newspaper portrayed the emergence of protest voting as an expression of mounting frustration with the political establishment, particularly over the treatment of yeshiva bochurim facing military conscription.

The development comes amid an increasingly bitter dispute within the chareidi community over the effectiveness of its elected representatives in protecting the status of full-time Torah learners.

The newspaper’s coverage also referred to sharp warnings issued by senior rabbonim against supporting the independent factions. HaPeles portrayed those warnings as part of an effort by the established parties to prevent a protest vote.

The front page carried the prominent headline, “Aggressive Campaign by the Chareidi Parties in an Attempt to Prevent Mass Protest Voting.”

In its accompanying coverage, the newspaper specifically mentioned Tzeva Shachor, accusing the established parties of attempting to intimidate potential supporters through severe warnings and denunciations.

Perhaps even more striking than the material published was what the newspaper omitted.

In previous election campaigns, HaPeles had prominently displayed Rav Shmuel Auerbach’s letter opposing participation in Knesset elections. That familiar letter did not appear on Tuesday’s front page.

Instead, the newspaper placed the controversy surrounding a party actually competing in the election at the center of its coverage.

The shift has led activists associated with the established chareidi parties to suggest that Tzeva Shachor may have closer ties to elements within the Peleg Yerushalmi than previously acknowledged.

One activist told Emess that the newspaper’s coverage confirmed suspicions raised throughout the campaign that Tzeva Shachor was effectively serving as a political vehicle for elements of the movement.

Other activists pointed to the Peleg Yerushalmi’s previous participation in municipal elections through the Bnei Torah lists, arguing that supporting a separate Knesset faction would represent an extension of that political activity.

However, the implications of Tuesday’s front page remain uncertain.

HaPeles did not publish an explicit instruction directing its readers to vote for Tzeva Shachor, and the absence of Rav Auerbach’s traditional anti-voting letter does not necessarily establish that the movement’s rabbinic leadership has changed its position.

Indeed, Rav Tzvi Friedman, a prominent figure associated with one faction of the Peleg Yerushalmi, issued a letter Monday explicitly opposing participation in the election, despite speculation that some within the movement might support Tzeva Shachor.

The newspaper also highlighted statements attributed to Rav Moshe Tzadka opposing support for Shas and United Torah Judaism, but did not present those statements as an explicit endorsement of Tzeva Shachor.

The developments reflect the complex divisions within the Peleg Yerushalmi, whose various factions have differed over political strategy even while sharing strong opposition to military conscription of yeshiva bochurim.

The emergence of Tzeva Shachor has added another dimension to the already tense election campaign. The party has sought to attract voters dissatisfied with the established chareidi leadership, particularly over the arrests of yeshiva bochurim and the failure to secure legislation addressing the draft issue.

Senior Gedolei Yisroel associated with Degel HaTorah and other established chareidi institutions have issued unusually strong warnings against supporting breakaway factions, arguing that votes cast for parties unlikely to cross the electoral threshold could weaken the Torah community’s representation in the Knesset.

The question now is whether Tuesday’s HaPeles front page will translate into actual participation by voters who have traditionally remained outside the Knesset electoral process.

For the established chareidi parties, even a relatively modest shift could prove consequential in a closely contested election, particularly if votes are diverted to a faction that ultimately fails to secure representation.

Whether HaPeles was signaling a genuine change in the Peleg Yerushalmi’s political approach or merely expressing sympathy for a protest movement remains unresolved. The results from polling stations in communities associated with the Peleg Yerushalmi may offer the clearest indication of whether the newspaper’s unusual election-day message reflected a broader change among its readership.

A new report from the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee has accused district attorneys across New York City’s five boroughs of directing prosecutors to consider reducing criminal charges and structuring plea agreements in ways that could protect noncitizen defendants from deportation, including in cases involving firearms, domestic violence, and offenses against children.

The report, released Monday and obtained by the New York Post, cited internal training documents, prosecutorial guidelines, and correspondence from district attorneys’ offices that described efforts to avoid immigration consequences when negotiating criminal dispositions.

According to the committee, prosecutors in several boroughs received explicit instructions to pursue alternative charges, omit certain details from conviction records, or negotiate pleas to offenses that would not automatically trigger removal proceedings under federal immigration law.

The findings added to an escalating dispute between congressional Republicans and New York City officials over sanctuary policies, federal immigration enforcement, and the extent to which local prosecutors should consider a defendant’s immigration status when resolving criminal cases.

The committee argued that the practices went beyond the traditional exercise of prosecutorial discretion and could interfere with federal immigration enforcement. The district attorneys’ policies, however, have generally been presented as efforts to avoid immigration penalties that prosecutors consider disproportionate to the underlying offense while maintaining public safety.

Among the most controversial material cited in the report were training documents from Bronx District Attorney Darcel Clark’s office that discussed how prosecutors could structure pleas in cases involving children, firearms, and domestic violence.

A 2019 training presentation on immigration-conscious plea bargaining instructed prosecutors handling certain offenses involving children to “[o]ffer something that does not have the child’s age as an element of the crime.”

The committee interpreted that guidance as an effort to prevent convictions from triggering deportation consequences associated with particular offenses under federal immigration law.

In firearms cases, Bronx prosecutors were advised to “[k]eep the firearm out of the record of conviction” and “[o]ffer something that does not specify a firearm” when negotiating plea agreements.

Similar guidance appeared in materials addressing domestic violence cases, where prosecutors were instructed to “[k]eep the domestic relationship out of the record of conviction.”

For stalking cases, the training suggested considering charges that did not include “repeated instances or an intent to instill fear.”

Republican investigators contended that omitting such elements from formal conviction records could affect how federal immigration authorities evaluate a defendant’s criminal history.

The committee also obtained March 2023 training materials titled “Crimmigration,” a term referring to the intersection of criminal law and immigration law.

Those documents instructed prosecutors, “[a]s appropriate,” to “strive to ensure that a conviction for certain offenses does not lead to unintended and severe consequences such as deportation that can tear families apart and destabilize communities.”

Clark had previously described her office’s approach in broader terms, stating that since 2020, “[p]rosecutors in my office must thoughtfully consider employment, immigration, family unification, and the broad range of other potential collateral consequences when initiating a prosecution.”

The committee also highlighted training material suggesting that prosecutors consider pleas involving so-called legally impossible offenses, a category involving conduct that cannot legally constitute the charged crime under the applicable circumstances.

The presentation stated that “[l]egally impossible crimes cannot serve as the basis for [immigration] removal proceedings” when reviewed in federal court.

The report described examples involving defendants who would have to possess “two contradictory mental states … at the same time” for the offense to be legally possible.

Congressional Republicans questioned whether such plea arrangements reflected the underlying conduct and whether they could prevent immigration authorities from obtaining information relevant to removal proceedings.

The committee said similar practices were documented in Queens, where District Attorney Melinda Katz’s office employed an immigration specialist to advise prosecutors on the potential consequences of plea agreements.

According to a report produced by Katz’s office in 2025, the specialist helped assistant district attorneys “navigate through plea options and assist in framing dispositions that will prevent unwanted immigration consequences.”

The House investigation found that the specialist helped secure the reduction or dismissal of 21 convictions in 2020. In another six cases, Katz asked then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo to grant pardons to prevent deportation.

Training materials cited by the committee instructed Queens prosecutors to “exercise extreme caution” and “not get caught up in the label of [f]elonies, [m]isdemeanors” when considering the immigration implications of criminal charges.

Investigators also obtained a May 26 email in which an assistant district attorney told an NYPD detective that prosecutors had “basically made a [plea] deal which is ‘immigration safe,’” while explaining that the defendant had still pleaded guilty to multiple crimes and served time in jail.

The correspondence demonstrated how the office’s approach could be applied in actual prosecutions, rather than existing solely as written policy.

The report also examined Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez’s office, which has pursued what it describes as immigration-neutral dispositions since 2017.

Brooklyn prosecutors have been trained “to avoid disproportionate collateral consequence, such as deportation, while maintaining public safety.”

In some circumstances, the office’s guidance calls for “a plea for a lesser offense in light of the disproportionate immigration consequences a higher level offense may result in.”

The committee said similar considerations were present in Staten Island, where District Attorney Michael McMahon’s office maintained a unit that communicated with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to seek delays in deportation proceedings.

In Manhattan, District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office informed congressional investigators that an earlier policy concerning immigration consequences was “outdated,” although prosecutors continued to consider defendants’ immigration circumstances individually.

A 2022 memorandum from Bragg had instructed prosecutors to “seek dispositions that avoid immigration consequences for all misdemeanors, and all felonies for which non-carceral outcomes are the presumptive outcome.”

The committee also focused on New York City’s refusal to honor federal immigration detainers.

According to the report, the NYPD received nearly 10,000 requests from ICE during the preceding 12 months seeking custody of noncitizens charged with criminal offenses. None of those requests was honored.

Earlier in October, the Department of Homeland Security reported that authorities throughout New York State had declined to honor 16,070 immigration detainers.

An ICE detainer requests that a local law enforcement agency notify federal immigration authorities before releasing an individual and, in certain circumstances, maintain custody briefly to facilitate a transfer. New York City’s sanctuary laws restrict compliance with such requests.

The report cited the case of Reeaz Khan, a Guyanese immigrant convicted of murdering a 92-year-old Queens woman, as an example of the public safety concerns Republicans associate with sanctuary policies. Khan was subsequently sentenced to 22 years to life in prison.

The report’s broader conclusions drew criticism from supporters of sanctuary protections, who argue that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility and that local criminal justice decisions should not automatically produce immigration penalties beyond the sentences imposed by courts.

In a separate development on October 22, a federal judge dismissed a Justice Department lawsuit challenging New York City’s sanctuary laws. Immigrant-rights organizations welcomed the ruling, which concerned the legality of the city’s restrictions on cooperation with federal immigration authorities rather than the particular plea-bargaining practices examined in the congressional report.

Republican lawmakers and city officials critical of the district attorneys’ policies argued that immigration considerations should not influence decisions about criminal accountability.

“When did protecting a criminal’s immigration status become a part of a DA’s job description?” New York City Councilwoman Joann Ariola asked.

“Our DA’s are entrusted with upholding the law and protecting the public,” Ariola told the New York Post. “If that’s not their priority, then they’ve got it backwards.”

Ken Frydman, a Democratic political operative and police union representative, also questioned the use of immigration specialists to influence criminal dispositions.

“Immigration specialists typically help immigrants navigate the immigration process, not help get convictions reduced or thrown out in order to keep illegal immigrants in the US,” Frydman said.

The congressional investigation began in May, when the House Judiciary Committee requested information from the five district attorneys’ offices, the NYPD, and the city’s Department of Correction concerning sanctuary policies and their implementation.

According to the committee, Katz initially resisted the request, arguing that state criminal prosecutions fell outside Congress’s oversight authority.

Her office subsequently cooperated after Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio and Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement Subcommittee Chairman Tom McClintock of California sent another letter in August warning that a subpoena could follow.

The findings formed part of a broader Republican congressional investigation into sanctuary jurisdictions and the relationship between local criminal justice policies and federal immigration enforcement.

The committee has also issued reports examining similar practices in Philadelphia, Colorado, Illinois, and Fairfax County, Virginia.

{Matzav.com}

Israel’s Central Elections Committee chairman, Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg, issued an emergency interim order on Tuesday directing United Torah Judaism and its polling-station representatives to stop transmitting real-time information about voter participation, following a petition alleging that the chareidi party was operating an unauthorized election-day reporting system.

The ruling came as voting continued across Israel in a closely contested election, with chareidi political leaders expressing growing concern over turnout in their traditional strongholds.

The petition was submitted by the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, which alleged that United Torah Judaism representatives stationed at polling locations had been instructed to monitor voter participation and relay information to a centralized system associated with Degel HaTorah, one of the two factions comprising United Torah Judaism.

According to the petition, representatives were directed to record information about the number of people who had voted and transmit those figures to party officials during the course of election day.

The petitioners alleged that the instructions included a procedure under which representatives would temporarily leave polling rooms to communicate the information by telephone, rather than using electronic devices inside the voting areas.

The Movement for Quality Government argued that the arrangement violated election regulations governing the conduct of party representatives and the collection and transmission of information from polling stations.

In response, Justice Sohlberg issued an interim order prohibiting the party and its representatives from continuing the disputed reporting activity while the matter was being examined.

United Torah Judaism was instructed to submit its response to the allegations by 2:15 p.m. Tuesday, Israel time.

The order was temporary and did not constitute a final judicial determination that United Torah Judaism had violated election law.

The dispute stems from an earlier legal battle over the use of election-day voter information by political parties. Israeli parties have traditionally relied on polling-station data and computerized systems to identify areas where participation is weak and direct campaign workers to encourage additional voters to cast their ballots.

The practice became the subject of legal challenges over concerns that information obtained by polling-station officials in the course of their official duties was being used for partisan political purposes.

Last Thursday, Israel’s Supreme Court ruled against the transfer of voter participation information to political parties. A clarification issued Sunday, October 25, established that the restriction applied to all methods of transmitting the information, not merely digital reporting systems.

The new petition alleged that United Torah Judaism had attempted to work around those restrictions by using handwritten records and telephone calls made outside polling rooms.

According to documents submitted with the petition, representatives were supplied with forms headed “Voter Turnout Tracking Form,” instructing them to mark each voter who arrived, record the time and transmit the cumulative number of voters to the Degel HaTorah reporting system.

The petitioners argued that leaving a polling room to make a telephone call did not change the legal status of information obtained inside the polling station.

Attorneys Jacqueline Bracha and Ido Orenstein, representing the Movement for Quality Government, welcomed the interim ruling, saying that election integrity required all parties to operate under the same rules.

“The integrity of elections requires equal rules for all parties. It is forbidden to violate the Supreme Court’s ruling and report the number of voters at polling stations,” the attorneys said.

They added that the interim order required United Torah Judaism and its representatives to stop the disputed reporting and pledged to continue monitoring compliance throughout election day.

The controversy comes at a particularly sensitive moment for United Torah Judaism, which is fighting to preserve its Knesset representation amid concerns that independent chareidi parties could draw away votes without crossing the electoral threshold.

Turnout figures released Tuesday afternoon showed participation of 28.4 percent in Bnei Brak and 28.3 percent in Beitar Illit, compared with 33.2 percent in Modi’in Illit and 32 percent in Elad.

The ability to monitor turnout at individual polling stations is considered an important tool for political parties seeking to mobilize supporters during the final hours of voting.

Reports from within United Torah Judaism indicated that different chareidi communities were employing separate election-day reporting arrangements. In some locations, booths were established outside polling stations where voters could voluntarily report that they had cast their ballots, a practice distinct from the disputed transmission of information by polling-station representatives.

The interim order specifically addresses information gathered and transmitted by the party’s representatives inside polling stations.

As of the latest verified reports, no final ruling on the petition had been announced, and the court had not determined that United Torah Judaism had actually violated the earlier Supreme Court decision.

Nevertheless, the intervention introduced a new legal complication for the party’s election-day operation as its representatives worked to maximize turnout before the polls closed Tuesday night.

Shas chairman Aryeh Deri made an emotional appeal to chareidi voters on Tuesday, his voice breaking during a live radio interview as he warned that low turnout among religious voters could bring about a political upheaval threatening Torah education, yeshivos, and the religious character of Israel.

Speaking on Kol Chai radio as Israelis headed to the polls, Deri expressed deep alarm over reports of unusually high voter participation in secular and left-wing strongholds, while turnout in several chareidi communities appeared to be lagging behind.

“I’m not joking, I’m crying. I’m really crying,” Deri declared during the interview, emphasizing the seriousness with which he viewed the situation.

His remarks came as election officials reported that voter turnout had reached 31.5 percent by noon, the highest comparable midday figure since 1977. The unusually strong participation raised concerns among right-wing and chareidi political leaders that their opponents were mobilizing voters more effectively.

Deri warned that the consequences of a defeat for the current right-wing and religious bloc could extend far beyond the composition of the next government, potentially affecting the institutions and religious arrangements upon which the chareidi community depends.

Among his most serious concerns was the future of chareidi educational institutions, which receive government funding and operate within arrangements negotiated by religious political representatives.

The Shas leader warned that a government led by parties opposed to the current religious coalition could seek to dismantle existing educational frameworks or drastically reduce their funding, leaving parents responsible for substantial additional tuition expenses.

He also raised the possibility of expanded public transportation on Shabbos and other changes to the longstanding religious status quo.

Deri portrayed the election as a critical moment for families seeking to raise their children according to Torah values, warning that decisions made by the next government could have lasting consequences for religious education and communal life.

Throughout the interview, he repeatedly urged voters not to remain at home, stressing that every ballot could affect the ability of the chareidi parties to defend the interests of their constituents in the next Knesset.

The Shas chairman insisted that his distress was not motivated by concern for his personal political future or the preservation of his position in government. Rather, he said, he was deeply troubled by the prospect of policies that could undermine the religious institutions and traditions of the community.

His comments reflected growing anxiety within the chareidi political establishment over voter turnout figures from Bnei Brak, Beitar Illit and other religious population centers.

According to midday figures, turnout in Bnei Brak stood at approximately 28.4 percent, while Beitar Illit recorded 28.3 percent. Modi’in Illit and Elad reported somewhat higher participation, at 33.2 percent and 32 percent, respectively.

Although these figures do not by themselves establish how many seats the chareidi parties will win, they have prompted an intensified effort by party officials, rabbonim and campaign activists to encourage voters to cast their ballots before polling stations close.

The election has been particularly contentious within the chareidi community because of the ongoing military draft controversy, including the arrests of yeshiva bochurim and the failure to enact legislation protecting full-time Torah learners from conscription.

Those developments have fueled dissatisfaction with the established chareidi parties, while independent factions have sought to attract voters who believe their representatives have failed to deliver meaningful results.

Deri and other senior chareidi political figures have warned that supporting parties unlikely to cross the electoral threshold could result in thousands of votes being lost, weakening the representation of the Torah community in the next Knesset.

The Shas chairman’s emotional radio appearance was part of a broader election-day mobilization effort, with party leaders increasingly concerned that a surge in turnout among opposition supporters could alter the balance of power.

Deri’s warnings about education funding and Shabbos reflected his assessment of what an alternative government might pursue, rather than announced policies that would necessarily be implemented.

Nevertheless, his message to chareidi voters was unmistakable: the election, he argued, was about far more than political power, and failing to participate could have consequences for the future of Torah education and religious life throughout Israel.

{Matzav.com}

Alarm is spreading through Israel’s right-wing and chareidi political parties as unusually high voter turnout in Tuesday’s Knesset elections raises fears that the political balance could shift dramatically, potentially costing United Torah Judaism its seventh Knesset seat and jeopardizing the right-wing bloc’s prospects of securing a majority.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich held an urgent telephone conversation Tuesday afternoon to coordinate an intensified effort to bring right-wing voters to the polls during the remaining hours of Election Day. The discussion followed reports of particularly strong turnout in Arab communities and traditional center-left strongholds, while several major chareidi cities were recording participation rates below the national average.

According to a statement from the Prime Minister’s Office, the conversation took place in response to what officials described as “concerning voter turnout percentages in the Arab sector.” Netanyahu and Smotrich agreed to coordinate their efforts to encourage supporters of the right-wing parties to cast their ballots before polls close at 10 p.m.

The concern comes amid extraordinary nationwide voting figures. By 2 p.m., 44.9% of eligible Israelis had already voted, representing 3,290,480 ballots cast. That figure is the highest recorded at that hour in decades and represents a substantial increase over the 2022 Knesset elections, when turnout at the same point stood at 38.9%.

The six-percentage-point increase has prompted intense scrutiny of voting patterns across the country, with political operatives attempting to determine whether the surge reflects a broad increase in civic participation or a disproportionate mobilization of voters opposed to the current right-wing government.

Particularly troubling to chareidi political officials are figures from some of the country’s largest chareidi population centers.

According to voting data released at noon, turnout in Bnei Brak stood at just 28.4%, while Beitar Illit recorded 28.3%. Both figures were below the nationwide average of 31.5% at that hour.

Modiin Illit performed somewhat better, with 33.2% of eligible voters having cast ballots by noon. However, that figure was still lower than the 36.9% turnout recorded in Rahat, the predominantly Bedouin city in southern Israel.

The unexpectedly high participation in Rahat has attracted particular attention among Likud officials, who are closely monitoring Arab voter mobilization and its potential implications for the next Knesset.

In several communities traditionally associated with Israel’s center-left parties, turnout was also running ahead of the national average.

Ramat Hasharon recorded approximately 35% participation by noon, followed by Hod Hasharon at 33.5%, Givatayim at approximately 33%, and Kfar Saba at roughly 33%.

By contrast, Bat Yam, a city generally regarded as a Likud stronghold, reported turnout of only about 24%.

The figures suggest that voters in several communities associated with the opposition were heading to the polls at a faster pace than those in some traditional right-wing and chareidi strongholds.

Nevertheless, participation in Arab communities has not been uniform. While Rahat recorded particularly high turnout, Umm al-Fahm reported participation of only approximately 18% at the same point in the day.

Despite those differences, strong turnout in Rahat and other Bedouin communities in the Negev has become a central concern for right-wing campaign officials.

Shas chairman Aryeh Deri publicly expressed his alarm during an interview with Radio Kol Chai, warning that complacency among chareidi and right-wing voters could have serious consequences.

“I am very concerned about the apathy in our chareidi and right-wing strongholds,” Deri said. “The high voter turnout in left-wing strongholds and the Arab sector is very concerning.”

Deri reported that long lines were forming outside polling stations in Bedouin communities in the Negev and in Tel Aviv, while voters in traditional chareidi and right-wing areas appeared less motivated to participate.

His remarks reflected growing anxiety within Shas and United Torah Judaism that significant numbers of their traditional supporters could remain home, even as voters elsewhere turn out in unusually large numbers.

For United Torah Judaism, the stakes are particularly high.

Political calculations circulating within the right-wing bloc suggest that if the current voting pace continues through the evening, nationwide turnout could approach 77%, a level that would substantially increase the number of votes needed to secure each Knesset seat.

Under that scenario, UTJ could require approximately 314,000 votes to retain its current seven-seat representation in the Knesset.

The estimate is not a definitive electoral threshold. The actual number of votes required will depend on the total number of valid ballots, the number of votes cast for parties that fail to cross the electoral threshold, and the distribution of seats under Israel’s Bader-Ofer electoral allocation system.

Nevertheless, the projection illustrates the magnitude of the challenge confronting the party.

In the 2022 elections, United Torah Judaism received 280,194 votes, securing seven Knesset seats.

If the current projection proves accurate, the party would need approximately 34,000 additional votes simply to maintain the same level of parliamentary representation.

That requirement comes at a particularly difficult moment for the party, which has faced growing criticism from segments of the chareidi community over its handling of the military draft controversy and the status of yeshiva bochurim.

Adding to the uncertainty is the emergence of two new chareidi political lists seeking to attract voters dissatisfied with the established chareidi parties.

One, called Hatzibbur Hachareidi, or “The Chareidi Public,” is headed by Motti Leitner. The other, Tzeva Shachor, or “Black Color,” is also competing for votes within the chareidi electorate.

Both parties emerged amid criticism of the traditional chareidi political leadership, particularly regarding the ongoing draft crisis and the treatment of yeshiva students.

Although neither list is widely expected to secure enough votes to enter the Knesset, their participation could have significant consequences for United Torah Judaism.

Votes cast for parties that fail to cross Israel’s 3.25% electoral threshold are excluded from the allocation of Knesset seats. Consequently, even relatively modest support for the new chareidi lists could deprive UTJ of votes it might otherwise have received.

Party officials fear that the combination of increased nationwide turnout, lower participation in major chareidi cities, and competition from alternative chareidi parties could prove sufficient to cost UTJ its seventh mandate.

The implications could extend beyond United Torah Judaism itself. In a closely contested election, the loss of even one seat by a party aligned with Netanyahu could affect the right-wing bloc’s ability to assemble a governing coalition.

Shas officials are also monitoring turnout in chareidi neighborhoods and communities throughout the country, attempting to determine whether the relatively low early participation represents a temporary delay or a more significant shift in voting behavior.

Chareidi voters have historically demonstrated strong electoral discipline, particularly when rabbinic leaders have emphasized the importance of participating in elections. However, the current campaign has unfolded against a backdrop of internal frustration and political divisions that could complicate efforts to mobilize the traditional electorate.

The concerns are not limited to the chareidi parties.

Within Likud and the broader right-wing camp, officials are also examining the potential consequences of votes being diverted to smaller right-wing parties that may fail to enter the Knesset.

Among those attracting attention is the party headed by Ofer Winter, whose participation has raised concerns about votes being drawn away from established parties within the right-wing bloc.

As nationwide turnout increases, the absolute number of votes required to cross the electoral threshold also rises, potentially making it more difficult for smaller parties to secure representation.

Political pollster Shlomo Filber addressed the situation Tuesday afternoon during an appearance on Channel 14, warning that the sharp increase in voter participation could substantially alter the calculations underlying recent election surveys.

Filber explained that the dramatic rise in turnout makes it considerably more difficult for smaller parties to cross the electoral threshold, raising the possibility that the final election results could differ significantly from the projections published during the campaign.

Such a development could produce major changes in the distribution of Knesset seats, particularly if substantial numbers of ballots are cast for parties that ultimately fail to qualify for representation.

At the same time, election analysts caution that turnout figures alone cannot establish which parties are benefiting from increased participation.

A high turnout rate in a community traditionally associated with a particular political camp does not necessarily mean that all additional voters are supporting that camp. Similarly, relatively low turnout in chareidi cities during the early afternoon does not necessarily indicate that those voters will remain home.

Voting patterns can change substantially during the final hours of Election Day, particularly in communities where voters traditionally head to polling stations later in the evening.

For that reason, party officials are placing particular emphasis on the next round of turnout figures and the final hours before polls close.

Netanyahu and Smotrich’s emergency coordination reflects the seriousness with which the right-wing leadership is treating the possibility that high turnout among opposition voters could alter the political landscape.

For United Torah Judaism, the immediate challenge is twofold: encouraging its traditional supporters to vote while limiting the number of ballots lost to competing chareidi lists.

The party’s ability to retain its seventh seat may depend on whether turnout in Bnei Brak, Beitar Illit, Modiin Illit, and other chareidi communities increases significantly before the polls close.

With voting continuing until 10 p.m., the outcome remains uncertain.

{Matzav.com}

A remarkable account of the Chazon Ish instructing a yeshiva bochur to prioritize voting over purchasing his own pair of tefillin was among several stories shared by author and biographer Rabbi A. Chefetz in an interview examining the extraordinary importance that Gedolei Yisroel throughout the generations attached to participation in Israeli elections.

Speaking with Gudi Silman on Kol Chai Radio’s Tzav Hasha’ah program ahead of Tuesday’s Knesset election, Rabbi Chefetz recounted incidents involving the Chazon Ish, Rav Chaim Kanievsky, the Bais Yisroel of Ger, Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman, and other Gedolei Yisroel, describing how they approached voting as a matter of religious responsibility rather than ordinary political participation.

One of the most striking accounts concerned Rav Chaim Kanievsky, who reportedly refused to eat breakfast on election mornings until he had cast his ballot.

“When Rav Chaim Kanievsky returned from voting in the elections, he sat down and said, ‘Now we can eat,’” Rabbi Chefetz related.

According to the account, Rav Chaim would make a point of voting immediately after Shacharis, approaching the opportunity with the same sense of urgency that he applied to other mitzvos.

When asked why he had not eaten beforehand, Rav Chaim reportedly responded, “How is this different from any other mitzvah?”

Rabbi Chefetz said Rav Chaim would express particular satisfaction at having fulfilled the obligation, repeating, “This is a mitzvah that comes once every few years. This is a mitzvah that comes once every few years.”

The story illustrated the significance Rav Chaim attached to carrying out the instructions of Gedolei Yisroel concerning elections, particularly because the opportunity to do so arose only at intervals of several years.

Rabbi Chefetz, who authored biographies of Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman and Rav Nissim Karelitz, shared the accounts as part of a discussion about the historical involvement of leading rabbonim in Israel’s electoral process.

He also related an incident involving the Bais Yisroel of Ger, who was approached by a man associated with the chassidus who expressed disappointment with the performance of chareidi Knesset members.

The individual raised complaints about the conduct of the political representatives, apparently questioning why he should continue supporting them when he believed they could have accomplished more.

Rather than directly debating the merits of the complaints, the Bais Yisroel responded by referring to a familiar passage recited during Shacharis concerning the preparation of the ketores in the Bais Hamikdosh.

The passage explains that adding a small quantity of honey to the ketores would have produced an extraordinarily pleasant fragrance.

“If one had added a tiny amount of honey to it, no person could have endured its fragrance,” the Bais Yisroel quoted from the teaching of Chazal.

Yet honey was not included among the ingredients of the ketores, despite the apparent improvement it would have produced.

The reason, he explained, was straightforward: “Because the Torah said so.”

Through the analogy, the Bais Yisroel conveyed that even when an individual believed a different course of action might produce better results, that judgment did not override an instruction he regarded as binding from Gedolei Yisroel.

“The Torah said so,” Rabbi Chefetz repeated, emphasizing the central message of the account.

The interview then turned to the earliest years of the State of Israel and the involvement of leading Torah figures in the country’s first election campaigns.

Rabbi Chefetz mentioned the Chazon Ish, the Tchebiner Rov, Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer, the Steipler Gaon, and Rav Aharon Kotler among the Gedolei Yisroel who had encouraged participation in elections.

According to Rabbi Chefetz, Rav Aharon Kotler even traveled from abroad specifically to become involved in the effort.

He quoted a letter attributed to the Chazon Ish in which the gadol urged someone to act promptly in connection with the election.

“Hurry to do the thing upon which entire foundations of Torah depend,” the Chazon Ish wrote, according to Rabbi Chefetz.

Another account involving the Chazon Ish concerned a yeshiva bochur who faced an unusual financial dilemma during Israel’s first elections.

The bochur had a limited amount of money and needed to purchase a pair of tefillin. At the same time, he was required to pay membership dues that would enable him to participate in the election.

Unable to afford both expenses, he approached the Chazon Ish to ask which should take precedence.

According to the account related by Rabbi Chefetz, the Chazon Ish instructed him to use the money for the payment that would allow him to vote.

The reasoning was that the bochur could fulfill the mitzvah of tefillin by borrowing a pair from someone else, whereas the opportunity to participate in the election would disappear once voting ended.

Voting, in that particular circumstance, was therefore regarded as a time-sensitive obligation that could not be made up afterward.

Silman expressed amazement at the account, observing that it demonstrated the importance the Chazon Ish attached to electoral participation, even when fulfilling that responsibility involved a personal sacrifice.

Rabbi Chefetz also addressed a recurring argument among voters who considered abstaining because they were dissatisfied with the performance of their political representatives.

He offered an analogy involving a person who became angry with someone else and decided to punish him by refusing to answer amen to his brachos.

“Whom are you punishing? Whom are you punishing?” Rabbi Chefetz asked.

His point was that withholding participation as an expression of anger toward political representatives could ultimately affect the very communal interests the dissatisfied voter wished to protect.

The biographer went on to recall the public activities of Rav Elazar Menachem Man Shach and Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman, who were deeply involved in efforts to mobilize the chareidi public when they believed that important Torah interests were at stake.

He cited Rav Shteinman’s well-known expression of alarm during a period when the rosh yeshiva feared serious harm to the Torah world.

“There is a fire, there is a blaze, the capital is burning, save us!” Rav Shteinman had cried.

The words reflected the urgency with which Rav Shteinman approached matters he believed threatened the continued flourishing of yeshivos and Torah institutions.

Toward the conclusion of the interview, Silman discussed the extensive travels undertaken by Rav Dov Landau and Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch in the days preceding the election.

Despite their advanced ages, the two roshei yeshiva had participated in gatherings in cities across Eretz Yisroel, addressing the public about the significance they attached to the upcoming vote.

Silman said that their willingness to undertake such demanding schedules demonstrated that they viewed the election as involving far more than the distribution of political positions or government appointments.

“This is a struggle over the very core of the Jewish people,” Silman declared.

He explained that, from the perspective of the rabbinic leadership, the central concern was the future of the Torah world and the ability of its institutions to continue functioning in the face of political and legal challenges.

Rabbi Chefetz agreed, saying that the historical accounts he had shared illustrated the consistent involvement of Gedolei Yisroel in matters affecting the public and the weight they had attached to participation in elections throughout the generations.

{Matzav.com}

The Sadigura Rebbe addressed growing dissatisfaction with chareidi political representatives over the unresolved yeshiva draft crisis, declaring that participation in Israeli elections was not intended to secure personal benefits but to strengthen the representation of Torah-observant Jews and protect religious life in Eretz Yisroel.

In a special public appeal released Monday ahead of the elections for the 26th Knesset, the Rebbe responded to arguments raised by members of the chareidi community who questioned the value of voting, particularly in light of the failure of political representatives to resolve the military conscription controversy.

The appeal, published as a formal kol korei within the Sadigura chassidus, contained remarks delivered by the Rebbe on Motzoei Shabbos in the chassidus’s Salash hall, following Havdalah.

The Rebbe spoke about the importance he attached to participation in the election and the responsibility he believed rested upon members of the community to increase support for United Torah Judaism, whose ballot designation is the Hebrew letter Gimmel.

At the center of his message was a response to those who argued that voting had brought them little or no personal benefit.

“One must understand that participation in elections is absolutely not intended for the purpose of obtaining personal benefits,” the Rebbe declared.

He explained that the purpose of participating in the political process, as he viewed it, was to increase the strength of representatives who were committed to Torah observance and accepted the authority of Daas Torah, while limiting the political influence of representatives who did not share those commitments.

The Rebbe emphasized that the election should be considered in terms of its implications for the broader Torah community rather than the immediate interests of individual voters.

His comments came amid considerable frustration within the chareidi public over the ongoing military draft controversy, which had placed yeshiva bochurim and their families under increasing pressure.

The failure to reach a satisfactory resolution to the issue had become a source of criticism directed at the established chareidi parties, with some voters questioning whether their representatives had adequately defended the interests of the yeshiva world.

The Sadigura Rebbe acknowledged those concerns, specifically addressing the argument that chareidi political representatives had not succeeded in resolving the draft issue.

He urged members of the community to consider the broader record of the chareidi parties, including measures taken to strengthen religious institutions and initiatives that, according to his assessment, had been prevented through the intervention of chareidi Knesset members.

The Rebbe argued that the absence of a solution to one major issue did not mean that political representation had accomplished nothing in other areas.

He also warned about what he considered the potential consequences of an increase in the political strength of parties opposed to the policies and priorities of the chareidi community.

According to the Rebbe, such a development could lead to additional measures affecting Torah institutions and the observance of mitzvos in Israel.

The Rebbe’s remarks reflected the broader debate taking place within chareidi political circles over the appropriate response to dissatisfaction with the established parties.

While some voters had expressed interest in abstaining or supporting smaller political movements, rabbinic leaders associated with the established chareidi parties had been issuing appeals explaining why they regarded continued political participation as important.

The Sadigura Rebbe’s message focused particularly on the distinction between personal grievances and communal responsibilities.

He explained that, in his view, voting represented an expression of the commitment of Torah-observant Jews to act on behalf of Hashem and His Torah.

That objective, he said, was the central consideration, independent of any additional practical advantages that might result from political representation.

The Rebbe cautioned against evaluating the election exclusively through the lens of personal calculations or the benefits received by particular individuals.

Instead, he called for consideration of the needs of the wider community and the long-term implications for the preservation of Torah life in Eretz Yisroel.

The Rebbe also addressed the role of individual voters in encouraging broader participation.

He said that, in his view, responsibility for the election did not end with a person casting his own ballot. He called upon members of the chassidus to reach out to relatives, acquaintances, and friends and encourage them to participate as well.

He emphasized that every individual should do whatever was within his ability to increase participation among those eligible to vote.

Even those who were unable to vote themselves for various reasons, he said, could still play a role by encouraging others to take part in the election.

The appeal reflected the emphasis the Rebbe placed on collective responsibility, presenting electoral participation as a communal undertaking rather than an individual political decision based solely on personal considerations.

The Rebbe returned repeatedly to the importance of taking practical action, urging his listeners not to remain passive or assume that responsibility rested exclusively with political representatives or communal leaders.

“And what is required is to do, to do, and to do,” the Rebbe declared toward the conclusion of his remarks.

He closed his message with a tefillah for success and siyata diShmaya.

{Matzav.com}

Rav Shlomo Moshe Amar, the former Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel and Rishon Letzion, delivered a sharp rebuke of the entire chareidi political leadership over its handling of the yeshiva draft crisis, declaring that representatives from every segment of the chareidi community had failed to adequately address the plight of yeshiva bochurim. At the same time, he warned that frustration with elected officials should not lead voters to abandon the political process, arguing that doing so could cause even greater harm to Torah institutions and religious life in Eretz Yisroel.

Speaking in a special interview with Rabbi Moshe Ben Lulu on Kol Chai Radio’s B’Govah Halev program Monday evening, Rav Amar acknowledged the widespread anger over the treatment of yeshiva students and the conduct of chareidi politicians, saying that the criticism was justified.

“In my opinion, all the chareidi representatives, every one of them, Ashkenazim, Sephardim, Litvaks, and Chassidim, conducted themselves unsuccessfully in this matter,” Rav Amar declared.

The remarks represented a sweeping criticism of the political representatives traditionally responsible for protecting the interests of the chareidi community, particularly in negotiations concerning military conscription and the status of full-time yeshiva students.

Rav Amar did not attempt to dismiss the grievances of voters who felt that their representatives had failed them.

“I understand, and I am not trying to evade the criticism here, because it is a legitimate criticism,” he said.

According to Rav Amar, a different approach by both political representatives and rabbinic figures might have produced a more favorable outcome in the ongoing dispute over the drafting of yeshiva bochurim.

His comments came amid widespread frustration over the draft controversy, which had become one of the most contentious issues facing the chareidi community ahead of the Knesset election.

The controversy had been accompanied by arrests of yeshiva students and increasing uncertainty over the legal and financial consequences facing those who had not reported for military service.

Rav Amar acknowledged the seriousness of those developments and the anger they had generated, but cautioned against allowing disappointment to dictate decisions that could have long-term consequences for the community.

To illustrate his argument, he offered a parable involving a building whose wall had suffered limited damage.

“It’s like someone who had a brick fall out of a wall that he built so beautifully and so well, or two bricks or three. Does he bring a bulldozer and destroy the entire wall and the entire building as well? That is not the way,” Rav Amar said.

The Rishon Letzion explained that dissatisfaction with particular political decisions did not necessarily justify actions that could weaken the broader institutions those representatives were supposed to protect.

He urged listeners to distinguish between holding public officials accountable for their failures and taking steps that might create additional difficulties for the chareidi community.

“We do not operate out of anger, and we are not engaged in revenge,” Rav Amar said. “We need to think about how to save whatever we can save, how to bring people closer as much as we can, and not push them away.”

The comments reflected his position that the response to political disappointment should be guided by an assessment of the consequences for Torah institutions and religious life rather than by a desire to punish individual politicians.

Rav Amar also criticized a separate decision by chareidi Knesset members involving the election of the Knesset speaker.

He objected to their support for the speaker’s appointment because of the speaker’s personal lifestyle, saying that the chareidi representatives should have handled the matter differently.

The Rishon Letzion regarded that vote as another example of questionable political judgment by the chareidi parties.

Nevertheless, he maintained that such decisions, however objectionable he considered them, did not justify conduct that could result in further setbacks for the religious community.

Rav Amar’s concerns extended beyond the draft crisis to the possible composition of the next government and the future administration of religious affairs in Israel.

He said he had received information from sources he considered reliable suggesting that a figure associated with the Reform movement could be appointed minister of religious affairs under a future government.

The report was presented by Rav Amar as information he had received, rather than as a confirmed appointment or an announced coalition agreement.

“If, G-d forbid, there is a Reform minister of religious affairs, he will fight, and he will also receive assistance from all those who are opposed to religion, and they will cause destruction for generations,” Rav Amar warned.

The Rishon Letzion expressed concern about the potential consequences for Israel’s religious institutions, citing kashrus supervision, the Chief Rabbinate, the rabbinical courts, and the Kosel Hamaaravi among the areas he believed could be affected.

Those institutions have been the subject of longstanding political and legal disagreements over religious authority, state recognition, and the relationship between Orthodox Judaism and other Jewish religious movements.

Rav Amar’s warning reflected his concern that changes in the leadership of the Religious Affairs Ministry could alter the policies governing those institutions.

The interview took place against the backdrop of growing divisions within the chareidi electorate over the draft issue. The controversy had already generated public criticism of the established parties, including disagreement among prominent Sephardic rabbonim about the political response to the conscription crisis.

In the days preceding the election, reports emerged of disagreements surrounding Shas and its position on the military service of chareidi men who were not engaged in full-time Torah study.

Rav Amar’s comments also followed his participation in discussions concerning the withdrawal of the small Achi party from the Knesset race. The party announced its withdrawal on October 23 following negotiations involving representatives of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and other political figures.

Those developments illustrated the competing pressures surrounding the election, as chareidi voters weighed dissatisfaction with their representatives against concerns about the policies of a future government.

Rav Amar said that, notwithstanding his criticism of the chareidi politicians, he considered public indifference during such a consequential period a serious matter.

“Indifference at such a time, in such a period, is a great sin and transgression,” he declared.

He continued, “We must make every effort to strengthen, because at this time, truly, religion is in danger.”

The Rishon Letzion stressed that his position did not arise from party-political considerations or personal loyalty to particular Knesset members.

Rather, he said, his concern centered on what he regarded as the potential consequences for Torah observance and religious institutions in Eretz Yisroel.

“I am not saying this from a political standpoint. I am not involved in that,” Rav Amar explained. “I am saying it from the standpoint of Torah and fear of Hashem, and the need to rise above all the calculations.”

{Matzav.com}

Despite his advanced age and health challenges, Rav Yitzchok Katz, rosh yeshiva of Yeshivas Nishmas Yisroel in Paris, made a special trip from France to Eretz Yisroel to participate in the elections for the 26th Knesset, continuing a practice he began years ago at the personal instruction of Maran Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman zt”l.

Rav Katz, who was approaching the age of 80, departed France on Monday, undertaking the journey specifically to cast his ballot in Israel. His decision came just one week after he publicly recounted the instructions he had received from Rav Shteinman and Maran Rav Gershon Edelstein zt”l concerning the importance of participating in Israeli elections.

The rosh yeshiva explained that his decision to travel was motivated not only by his commitment to the instructions of his rabbeim, but also by his desire to set a personal example for others whom he encouraged to vote.

“How can I encourage the public to vote when I myself do not do so?” Rav Katz asked, explaining why he was prepared to undertake the journey despite the difficulties involved.

The trip was reported Monday by Kol Chai Radio, where Rav Katz had discussed his previous election-related journeys during an interview the preceding week on the program Tzav Hasha’ah, hosted by Bnei Brak Deputy Mayor Gudi Silman.

During that interview, the rosh yeshiva revealed that he had previously flown from France to Israel on two separate occasions solely to participate in Knesset elections, following a direct instruction from Rav Shteinman.

“Twice I traveled especially to Eretz Yisroel to vote, in accordance with Rav Shteinman’s instruction,” Rav Katz recalled. “He told me that one must vote, that it is literally a matter of pikuach nefesh.”

Rav Katz explained that he had regarded the instruction as binding despite the considerable inconvenience involved in traveling internationally for the purpose of casting a ballot.

The trips had required financial expenditures, time away from his responsibilities in the yeshiva, and interruptions to his regular learning schedule. Nevertheless, he said, the directive he had received from Rav Shteinman left no doubt in his mind about the importance of making the journey.

Although he could no longer recall precisely which election campaigns had prompted those earlier trips, Rav Katz said he vividly remembered the instruction itself and his determination to fulfill it.

Rav Katz had spent decades involved in harbotzas Torah in France, having originally traveled there on a mission from Maran Rav Elazar Menachem Man Shach zt”l.

As rosh yeshiva of Nishmas Yisroel in Paris, he had devoted many years to Torah education and strengthening Jewish religious life in the French community.

His connection to the Gedolei Yisroel in Eretz Yisroel had remained a significant part of his approach to communal matters, including questions concerning political participation.

During the radio interview, Rav Katz also recounted a particularly memorable encounter with Rav Gershon Edelstein that had taken place following another election-related journey from France.

On that occasion, Rav Katz had traveled to Israel accompanied by a Jewish man from France who had obtained Israeli citizenship.

The two had arrived in Israel during the morning hours and proceeded to cast their ballots.

Later that evening, they traveled to the home of Rav Edelstein, hoping to visit the rosh yeshiva.

However, Rav Edelstein had been experiencing elevated blood pressure that day and, because of his medical condition, was not receiving visitors.

When Rav Edelstein was informed that the two men had traveled all the way from France specifically to participate in the election, he agreed to receive them despite his weakness.

Rav Katz recalled the encounter with emotion.

“Even though he was lying down, he got up and received us warmly, thanked us, and blessed us. It was truly a special occasion,” he said.

The rosh yeshiva described the meeting as an experience that had remained with him long afterward, particularly because Rav Edelstein had made the effort to greet them despite not feeling well.

For Rav Katz, the encounter had reinforced the importance that the Gedolei Yisroel attached to participation in the electoral process.

With another Knesset election approaching, Rav Katz once again decided to make the journey.

The passage of time had made the undertaking more difficult. Approaching his eightieth birthday and dealing with health challenges, the rosh yeshiva faced greater physical demands than during his previous trips.

Nevertheless, he chose to travel to Israel rather than simply encourage others to participate from abroad.

His latest journey followed the same pattern as his earlier visits, in which he had traveled from France to Eretz Yisroel specifically for the purpose of voting.

The decision also carried particular significance for his talmidim and other Israeli citizens living outside the country, some of whom faced practical obstacles when seeking to participate in elections.

Unlike many countries, Israel generally did not permit its citizens residing abroad to vote at embassies or consulates. With limited exceptions for certain categories of official personnel, eligible Israeli voters were required to be physically present in Israel to cast their ballots.

For an Israeli citizen living in France, participating in a Knesset election therefore required international travel in most circumstances.

{Matzav.com}

[Video below.] Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, confronted UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese during a heated session on Monday, presenting her with a resignation letter already drafted in her name and demanding that she step down over what he described as her persistent anti-Israel bias, false accusations, and willingness to overlook the crimes of Hamas.

The extraordinary confrontation unfolded as Albanese, the UN’s special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, presented her latest report accusing Israel of systematically targeting journalists and media personnel during the war in Gaza. Danon rejected her findings and accused her of exploiting her international position to promote an extremist political agenda rather than conducting an impartial examination of human rights violations.

“You are a liar, a fraud, and a stain on the United Nations. Your accusations are not proof, your assumptions are not evidence, and repeating the word ‘genocide’ does not make it true. You claim to defend human rights while ignoring the Hamas terrorist organization that tramples them,” Danon declared.

The Israeli envoy then produced a resignation letter that had been prepared for Albanese to sign. The document, written as though Albanese herself were submitting her resignation, accused her of abusing her UN mandate to advance Hamas’s ideology, excuse terrorism, and spread hostility toward Israel while claiming to act in defense of human rights.

Danon made clear that he believed Albanese had forfeited the credibility necessary to continue serving as a UN human rights investigator.

“You are undermining the credibility of the United Nations and exploiting its emblem to spread anti-Israel propaganda. The only official letter you should issue is your resignation letter. It’s time for you to go home,” he told her.

https://matzav.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/VIDEO-2026-10-27-08-09-13.mp4

The confrontation marked another escalation in the long-running dispute between Israel and Albanese, an Italian lawyer who has served as the UN special rapporteur for the Palestinian territories since 2022. Throughout her tenure, she has repeatedly accused Israel of grave violations of international law, including genocide, while Israeli officials have denounced her reports as politically motivated and fundamentally hostile to the Jewish state.

The latest dispute centers on Albanese’s report to the UN General Assembly, identified as document A/81/249, which examines the treatment of Palestinian journalists and media organizations during the Gaza war. Albanese alleges that Israeli actions against members of the media form part of a broader pattern of violations. Israel disputes her conclusions and rejects the suggestion that its military operations constitute a deliberate campaign against journalists.

Danon’s confrontation was accompanied by a separate American demand for Albanese’s removal, adding significant diplomatic pressure to the calls for her resignation.

During a meeting of the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee on Monday, Jeff Bartos, the United States representative for UN management and reform, delivered a sharply worded condemnation of Albanese, accusing her of spreading hostility toward Israel, the United States, and Jewish people.

Bartos described Albanese as a “moral fugitive” and a “lunatic,” and accused the United Nations of allowing its human rights apparatus to be used to promote inflammatory political messages.

“[The UN] allows a charlatan to soil the UN uniform—even as she stokes the very conflicts this body was created to end—and even as her words are found in terrorists’ chants,” Bartos said.

The American representative also claimed that other diplomats privately share his concerns about Albanese but have been unwilling to express them publicly.

“Start by saying publicly what you say to me privately. That the UN should not be a nursery for evil. That its brand has been soiled long enough. That Albanese must go,” Bartos declared.

The coordinated criticism from Israeli and American representatives comes more than a year after the Trump administration imposed sanctions on Albanese in July 2025. The administration accused her of pursuing actions against American and Israeli individuals through the International Criminal Court and engaging in what Washington characterized as an illegitimate campaign against Israel.

Albanese condemned the sanctions as an attack on her independence and maintained that her work was grounded in international law. Her supporters have similarly argued that efforts to punish or remove her threaten the independence of UN human rights investigators.

The controversy surrounding Albanese predates the latest confrontation. In 2022, previously published social media comments surfaced in which she had referred to the influence of the “Jewish lobby” over American policy. Critics described the language as antisemitic, while Albanese rejected that interpretation and maintained that her remarks had been “mischaracterized.”

Her statements following the October 7, 2023, Hamas massacre further intensified criticism from Israeli officials. Albanese argued that the attack needed to be examined within the broader historical and political “context” of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, an approach critics said minimized the responsibility of Hamas for the atrocities committed against Israeli civilians.

In subsequent reports, Albanese accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, allegations that the Israeli government has consistently rejected. Israel maintains that its military campaign was launched in response to the October 7 massacre and was directed against Hamas and its military infrastructure.

Earlier this year, Albanese faced renewed international criticism after participating in an Al Jazeera conference in Doha. During her remarks, she criticized governments that had continued supplying Israel with military, diplomatic, and economic support.

“The fact that instead of stopping Israel, most of the world has armed, given Israel political excuses, political sheltering, economic and financial support … We who do not control large amounts of financial capitals, algorithms and weapons, we now see that we as a humanity have a common enemy,” she said.

Her remarks prompted criticism from European officials, including French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot, who called for her resignation. However, the controversy also involved disagreement over an edited recording of her comments, with Albanese insisting that critics had falsely attributed to her a statement identifying Israel itself as humanity’s common enemy.

She subsequently insisted she “never, ever, ever said ‘Israel is the common enemy of humanity,'” describing the allegations as “completely false accusations.”

France nevertheless maintained its demand that she leave her position, citing what its foreign minister characterized as a broader history of unacceptable statements concerning Israel and the October 7 massacre.

The latest confrontation also follows another controversy involving Albanese earlier this month, when she called for an International Criminal Court investigation of Israeli journalists and public officials over alleged incitement to genocide. Her proposal prompted criticism from those who argued that it threatened freedom of expression and improperly targeted members of the Israeli media.

Last week, Israeli actress and model Sarai Givaty filed a defamation lawsuit seeking 500,000 shekels in damages from Albanese over an alleged comparison involving Nazi imagery. The legal action added another dimension to the disputes surrounding the rapporteur’s public statements.

Despite the mounting criticism, Albanese has continued defending her work and insisting that international scrutiny of Israel’s actions is necessary. She has argued that accusations of antisemitism are being used to discredit investigations into alleged abuses against Palestinians.

Her supporters contend that special rapporteurs must be free to investigate governments without facing political retaliation, while Israel and the United States maintain that the independence of such officials does not exempt them from standards of impartiality and professional conduct.

UN special rapporteurs are independent experts appointed by the Human Rights Council. They do not serve as diplomatic representatives of their home countries, and their findings do not constitute binding legal judgments by the United Nations. Their mandates allow them to investigate and report on human rights concerns, but their conclusions may be challenged by governments and other parties.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul has openly expressed her desire to see Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu defeated in Israel’s election, suggesting that his departure from office would make governing New York considerably less difficult. Her remarks, published Tuesday in an interview with Politico, have drawn attention to her apparent connection between Netanyahu’s policies and the escalating antisemitism confronting Jewish communities across New York.

Hochul, who has repeatedly emphasized her commitment to protecting Jewish residents, indicated that the political direction of Israel has complicated her responsibilities at home. Asked about the prospect of Netanyahu losing power, the Democratic governor acknowledged that her job would become “a lot easier” if the Israeli leader were no longer in office.

Reflecting on her visit to Israel following the Hamas massacre of October 7, 2023, Hochul said she had privately warned Israeli officials against pursuing a military response that could diminish international sympathy for the Jewish state.

“I went to Israel right after Oct. 7. I saw a lot of pain there. But I actually cautioned the government there, in private conversations, not to overreach,” Hochul said. “The world is with you when it comes to the brutal assault by a terrorist organization known as Hamas on innocent Israeli people. An overreach could change that dynamic, and that’s what’s happened.”

Her comments suggested that she believes Israel’s conduct during the war in Gaza contributed to a deterioration in public attitudes toward Israel, creating additional challenges for Jewish communities in New York. The governor did not, however, establish a direct causal connection between Netanyahu’s leadership and individual antisemitic attacks in her state.

“A lot of people are anxious about antisemitism, which is sky-high right now,” she added, “And I take that personally, because I represent everyone.”

Hochul also reiterated her support for the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, arguing that Netanyahu’s continued leadership represents a major obstacle to achieving such an arrangement.

“I believe we have to get people of goodwill who can make this happen, and as long as Netanyahu is sitting there, that is not in his interest to do that. It’s just not, and it won’t happen.”

The governor maintained that she remains committed to safeguarding New York’s Jewish population, particularly as synagogues, yeshivos, and other Jewish institutions face continuing security concerns. She pointed to the need for government funding to protect religious facilities from threats and violence.

“Those of us who are just trying to just do the right thing and let the Jewish people know I’m protecting them in the city, that I have to worry about security grants to protect synagogues and yeshivas from violence. There was another attack recently.”

Hochul’s remarks come amid continuing criticism of her response to antisemitism, with detractors arguing that her administration has failed to confront certain political figures and activist organizations whose rhetoric and activities have alarmed Jewish New Yorkers.

Among the issues cited by critics is her relationship with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, whose statements concerning Israel and the war in Gaza have repeatedly generated controversy. Critics have accused Hochul of failing to challenge Mamdani forcefully, including following his statement marking the anniversary of the October 7 massacre, which they said devoted substantially greater attention to accusations against Israel than to the Hamas atrocities that precipitated the war.

The controversy has also extended to anti-Israel demonstrations targeting Jewish gatherings and institutions in New York City. Jeffrey Lax, a professor at the City University of New York School of Law and founder of Students and Faculty for Equality at CUNY, criticized Hochul in a New York Post opinion piece published Monday, accusing her of failing to respond adequately to harassment directed at Jewish participants in a real estate gathering in Riverdale, in the Bronx.

According to Lax, activists involved in the Riverdale incident were affiliated with the same anti-Israel organization associated with previous demonstrations targeting Jewish communities and synagogues throughout the city. His criticism centered on what he characterized as the governor’s unwillingness to take a sufficiently forceful stand against intimidation of Jewish New Yorkers.

The dispute places Hochul in a politically sensitive position as she seeks to balance her stated support for Jewish security with her opposition to Netanyahu’s policies. Her latest comments have brought renewed attention to the question of whether New York’s elected leaders are adequately addressing antisemitism as a domestic public safety problem, independently of their positions on Israeli politics.

The Riverdale controversy involved a planned gathering for Jewish families interested in purchasing property in Israel. After the anti-Israel group Pal-Awda announced plans to demonstrate against the event, organizers canceled the physical gathering and moved it online. The activist organization subsequently celebrated the cancellation, while local elected officials denounced the effort to intimidate Jewish participants.

Congressman Ritchie Torres, New York City Councilman Eric Dinowitz, Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz, and Bronx Borough President Vanessa Gibson were among the officials who condemned the campaign. The incident followed similar protests against events involving Israeli property and immigration, including a Nefesh B’Nefesh fair in Queens that was relocated amid concerns about demonstrations.

Hochul’s comments also come against the backdrop of her increasingly cooperative relationship with Mamdani. In the same Politico interview, she described her relationship with the mayor as “very positive,” even as she distanced herself from the idea that his socialist political philosophy would necessarily appeal to voters throughout New York State.

Meanwhile, Israelis headed to polling stations Tuesday in a closely contested national election that could determine Netanyahu’s political future. His principal challenger, former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, has sought to capitalize on public dissatisfaction with the government’s handling of the October 7 attack and its aftermath. However, Israel’s multiparty parliamentary system means that even a strong showing by Netanyahu’s opponents would not necessarily guarantee his removal from office.

The election has also exposed differences between prominent American political figures. While Hochul has expressed a preference for Netanyahu’s defeat, President Donald Trump has publicly endorsed the Israeli prime minister, portraying his continued leadership as important to the American-Israeli partnership and efforts to confront Iran.

Former Israeli Supreme Court President Aharon Barak has issued a stark warning about the future of Israeli democracy, declaring that even the Supreme Court would be powerless to preserve the country’s democratic system if the public itself rejected its underlying principles. In an interview released on the eve of Tuesday’s Knesset elections, Barak sharply criticized Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s government, described its ministers as puppets, and warned that Israel could become an autocracy if Justice Minister Yariv Levin’s proposed judicial changes were implemented.

Speaking with Oron Schwartz on the Israeli public broadcaster’s Mishpat Chozer podcast, Barak addressed the continuing struggle over the authority of the Supreme Court, the independence of Israel’s judiciary, and the relationship between elected political leaders and the legal establishment.

The former court president, widely regarded as the architect of Israel’s judicial revolution, expressed confidence in the current Supreme Court’s commitment to protecting the country’s democratic institutions. However, he acknowledged that the judiciary’s ability to preserve those institutions ultimately depends on the willingness of the broader public to maintain a democratic system.

“I think today’s Supreme Court is a court that will preserve Israeli democracy,” Barak said.

He immediately qualified that assessment with a warning about the limits of judicial power.

“If the people don’t want democracy, the court will not succeed in preserving democracy,” he declared.

Barak went further, suggesting that even Israel’s Declaration of Independence could eventually be replaced if the public no longer supported the principles associated with the founding document.

“If the people don’t want the Declaration of Independence, then they will find a way to cancel the Declaration of Independence, and they will create a new Declaration of Independence,” he said.

The remarks come at a particularly sensitive moment in Israeli politics, with the country preparing to vote in an election shaped in part by years of confrontation between Netanyahu’s government and the judiciary.

At the center of that dispute is a fundamental disagreement over the meaning of democratic government and the proper balance of authority between elected representatives and unelected judges.

Barak has long maintained that democracy involves more than the ability of a parliamentary majority to enact legislation. His judicial philosophy places substantial importance on constitutional principles, individual rights, and legal limitations on the exercise of governmental power.

Critics of Barak’s approach, including supporters of judicial reform, argue that the Israeli Supreme Court has accumulated excessive authority and that judicial intervention in political and legislative decisions can undermine the ability of elected officials to implement policies supported by voters.

Those competing views have driven one of the most divisive political controversies in Israel in recent years.

Barak’s latest comments addressed the question of what happens when the judiciary and the elected government fundamentally disagree over the boundaries of democratic authority.

His warning that the court could not preserve democracy against the wishes of the public reflected his view that judicial institutions cannot independently sustain a constitutional order without broader public support.

The former Supreme Court president also directed unusually harsh criticism at Netanyahu and the ministers serving in his government.

“Netanyahu’s ministers are puppets,” Barak said.

He argued that the concentration of political authority in Netanyahu’s hands had weakened the separation of powers, claiming that the prime minister effectively controlled both the executive branch and the Knesset.

In Barak’s assessment, the existing political arrangement has undermined the institutional independence that he considers necessary for democratic government.

He reserved particular criticism for Justice Minister Yariv Levin, whose proposals to restructure aspects of Israel’s judicial system have been at the center of the longstanding confrontation between the government and its opponents.

Barak warned that implementing Levin’s agenda would fundamentally alter Israel’s system of government.

“We will become an autocracy,” he said.

The assertion reflects Barak’s opposition to judicial reforms that would change the balance of power between the Supreme Court, the government, and the Knesset.

Supporters of Levin’s proposals have argued that changes to judicial appointments and the scope of judicial review are necessary to restore accountability and prevent the courts from exercising powers that properly belong to elected officials.

Opponents have maintained that such changes could weaken judicial independence and reduce institutional safeguards against government overreach.

The controversy has remained a central issue in Israeli political life, with disagreements extending beyond the details of individual legislative proposals to broader questions about the structure of the state.

During the interview, Barak also disclosed an unsuccessful attempt to influence Netanyahu’s selection of a justice minister before the government was formed.

According to Barak, he contacted American constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz and asked him to convey a message to Netanyahu urging him not to appoint Levin to the position.

Instead, Barak recommended Moshe Arbel, the Shas politician who later served as interior minister and health minister.

Explaining his preference for Arbel, Barak spoke warmly about his academic relationship with the Shas figure.

“I have a student at the university, at Reichman, who is a member of Knesset and asks me questions. He has a sharp and wonderful mind,” Barak recalled.

The former Supreme Court president indicated that he believed Arbel would have been a preferable choice to lead the Justice Ministry.

His intervention, however, failed to change Netanyahu’s decision.

“It didn’t help, and Bibi appointed Yariv Levin,” Barak said.

The disclosure was notable given the considerable ideological differences between Barak and the chareidi political parties, including Shas.

Despite those differences, Barak’s comments reflected his favorable personal assessment of Arbel, whom he knew through their academic interactions.

The former court president’s criticism of Levin also highlighted the extent to which the justice minister has become a central figure in the broader debate over Israel’s judiciary.

Levin has advocated structural changes intended to increase the influence of elected officials over the judicial system, while Barak and other opponents have warned that the proposed reforms threaten the independence of the courts.

Asked whether Israel was already approaching the political system he fears, Barak declined to make a definitive prediction about the outcome of the election.

“We will see what the election results are. I don’t know. With this government, we are heading in that direction,” he said.

The comments placed the approaching election at the center of Barak’s assessment of Israel’s democratic future.

Although Barak has repeatedly warned that the government’s judicial agenda threatens democratic institutions, he also acknowledged in the interview that the Supreme Court cannot indefinitely prevent political changes if the public supports them.

His remarks highlight the distinction he draws between electoral democracy, in which governments derive their authority from the voters, and liberal democracy, which also requires institutional checks on government power and protections for individual rights.

For supporters of judicial reform, the central issue remains whether judges should possess broad authority to overturn decisions made by elected representatives. Critics of the reforms, including Barak, contend that judicial oversight is necessary to prevent a parliamentary majority from weakening fundamental democratic safeguards.

The disagreement is especially significant in Israel, which does not have a single, comprehensive written constitution and instead relies on a series of Basic Laws, judicial precedents, and institutional arrangements to define the powers of government.

Barak’s legal philosophy has played a major role in shaping those arrangements, particularly through the expansion of judicial review during his years on the Supreme Court.

His opponents have long criticized that legacy, arguing that the judiciary acquired powers that were never explicitly authorized by the electorate. His supporters credit the same developments with strengthening legal protections against arbitrary government action.

The former Supreme Court president’s latest interview also drew attention to his unusual recommendation that Netanyahu appoint a Shas politician rather than Levin to the Justice Ministry, illustrating that his concerns about the government’s legal agenda are not limited to conventional divisions between religious and secular political parties.

Ultimately, Barak did not argue explicitly that an unelected minority should govern Israel or that election results should be disregarded. Rather, he maintained that the authority of an elected majority must operate within democratic limits, while warning that those limits themselves could be endangered if public support for them erodes.

{Matzav.com}

Rav Zamir Cohen, rosh yeshiva of Yeshivas Avnei Nezer and rov of the Esrog neighborhood in Beitar Illit, has issued a strongly worded letter to his talmidim ahead of Tuesday’s Knesset elections, urging participation in the electoral process and warning against disregarding the instructions of Gedolei Yisroel when deciding how to vote.

In the letter, released Monday, Rav Cohen addresses the growing debate within the chareidi community over whether participation in the election is worthwhile, particularly amid dissatisfaction with the performance of chareidi political representatives and concerns about the future of Torah institutions in Eretz Yisroel.

The letter calls for Ashkenazi chareidim to support United Torah Judaism and Sephardic chareidim to support Shas, in accordance with the respective instructions of their rabbinic leadership.

Rav Cohen presents the issue as extending beyond ordinary political considerations, describing the election as a moment with significant implications for the future of Torah life and the religious character of the country.

His appeal comes as Israel prepares to elect the 26th Knesset, with the chareidi parties facing intense scrutiny over their handling of the yeshiva draft controversy, restrictions affecting Torah institutions, and other issues that have generated considerable frustration within portions of their traditional electorate.

At the beginning of his letter, Rav Cohen addresses those who are considering abstaining from the election because they believe their participation will accomplish little, as well as those contemplating support for parties that do not have the backing of Gedolei Yisroel.

He describes voting to strengthen Torah interests as “a privilege that is an absolute obligation according to halacha.”

According to Rav Cohen, that responsibility is particularly significant at the present time because of what he views as the serious challenges confronting Torah institutions and the future of Yiddishkeit in Eretz Yisroel.

The rosh yeshiva emphasizes that even a single additional Knesset seat could affect the political balance and the ability of chareidi representatives to address matters involving religious education and Torah institutions.

A central theme of the letter is Rav Cohen’s insistence that the significance of voting cannot be measured exclusively by the eventual distribution of Knesset seats.

He argues that participation also represents a public expression of identification with the Torah community and its rabbinic leadership.

“Every vote determines that another Jew belongs to the camp of those who tremble at the word of Hashem,” Rav Cohen writes.

He therefore urges his talmidim not to limit their involvement to casting their own ballots, but also to encourage others to participate.

The letter specifically distinguishes between the electoral instructions directed toward Sephardic and Ashkenazi chareidi voters, reflecting the traditional political affiliations of the two communities.

For Sephardic voters, Rav Cohen points to Shas, while for Ashkenazi voters he identifies the list endorsed by their Gedolei Yisroel, United Torah Judaism.

Rav Cohen also addresses the argument that individuals should independently evaluate the competing political options and reach their own conclusions, even when those conclusions differ from the guidance of their rabbonim and roshei yeshiva.

In one of the letter’s strongest passages, he warns against what he characterizes as an attitude of disregarding the authority of Torah leadership.

“And anyone who considers himself clever enough to follow his own judgment and the dictates of his heart, contrary to the guidance of his yeshiva and the Gedolei HaTorah of the generation, is paving his way toward a lowly and terrible course of life that no accomplished ben Torah would ever aspire to reach,” Rav Cohen writes.

The language reflects the emphasis Rav Cohen places on the relationship between a talmid and his rabbinic mentors, particularly when confronting questions that he regards as affecting the broader Torah community.

His letter comes amid a contentious election campaign in which some chareidi voters have openly questioned whether the established parties have adequately represented their interests.

The prolonged dispute over military conscription for yeshiva bochurim, together with financial restrictions affecting Torah institutions, has intensified public debate over the effectiveness of chareidi political representation.

Several smaller political movements have attempted to attract support from voters dissatisfied with the traditional parties, raising concerns among established party leaders about ballots being cast for lists that may fail to cross the electoral threshold.

Under Israel’s electoral system, a party must receive at least 3.25% of valid votes nationwide to qualify for Knesset representation. Votes cast for parties that fall below that threshold do not result in seats for those parties.

Rav Cohen’s letter addresses this broader atmosphere by placing particular emphasis on adherence to the instructions of Gedolei Yisroel rather than on individual assessments of political strategy or the accomplishments of particular representatives.

He portrays participation in the election as part of a larger responsibility toward the preservation and strengthening of Torah life in Eretz Yisroel.

The appeal is directed primarily to his own talmidim, whom he urges to recognize the importance of their actions and the influence they can have on others.

In his concluding remarks, Rav Cohen offers a bracha that the bnei hayeshiva merit continued growth and greatness in Torah and bring honor to Klal Yisroel.

He closes with a tefillah for the fulfillment of the words, “When Hashem returns to Tzion with mercy,” expressing his hope for the spiritual future of the Jewish people.

{Matzav.com}

Chareidi activists affiliated with Israel’s Otzma Yehudit party staged an unusual protest outside the Tel Aviv residence of Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara on Monday evening, presenting what they described as a symbolic “gift” of votes that could be lost to small political parties failing to cross the electoral threshold in Tuesday’s Knesset election.

The demonstrators installed a protest display outside the attorney general’s home, seeking to draw attention to concerns within the right-wing and chareidi political camps that thousands of ballots could be effectively wasted if voters support parties that do not receive enough votes to enter the Knesset.

The protest was organized as part of Otzma Yehudit’s final campaign efforts to reach chareidi voters, particularly those considering supporting smaller parties rather than the established chareidi and right-wing lists.

Explaining their decision to demonstrate outside Baharav-Miara’s residence, the activists declared, “We came to give Gali a ‘gift’ — the votes of chareidim who intend to vote for parties that will not cross the electoral threshold and throw their votes in the garbage.”

The demonstrators argued that ballots cast for parties that fail to enter the Knesset ultimately reduce the number of seats available to the political bloc those voters would otherwise support.

Under Israel’s electoral system, a party must receive at least 3.25% of the valid nationwide vote to qualify for Knesset representation. Parties falling below that threshold receive no seats, regardless of how many ballots they collect.

The activists used the display to portray such votes as a political benefit to Baharav-Miara and other figures whom the protesters regard as opponents of the right-wing government.

According to the demonstrators, votes lost to unsuccessful small parties represent a “political prize” for the attorney general and the political opposition.

The choice of location was intended to reinforce that message, with activists using Baharav-Miara as a symbol of the legal establishment that has frequently clashed with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s government.

The attorney general has been at the center of numerous disputes involving the government, including disagreements over legal policy and the status of yeshiva students facing military conscription.

The demonstration came amid growing concern among right-wing party officials about the number of smaller political lists competing for votes from the same general electorate.

With the election only hours away, senior political figures have been making last-minute attempts to persuade leaders of smaller parties to withdraw their candidacies rather than risk dividing the vote.

On Sunday evening, Netanyahu met with Moti Leitner, chairman of the Chareidi Public Party, and urged him to withdraw from the election.

According to reports, Netanyahu warned that the party’s continued participation could result in votes being lost if it failed to cross the electoral threshold, potentially affecting the distribution of Knesset seats.

Leitner did not immediately agree to withdraw. Instead, he indicated that he would await commitments from the established chareidi parties before making a final decision.

The meeting reflected broader efforts by Netanyahu and other right-wing leaders to consolidate support among voters who might otherwise cast their ballots for smaller parties.

A separate effort involved Religious Zionism chairman Bezalel Smotrich, who approached Ofer Winter, the former senior IDF officer heading the Amcha Yisrael party, with an offer intended to persuade him to abandon his Knesset campaign.

Smotrich reportedly proposed appointing Winter to a ministerial position within the Defense Ministry in exchange for withdrawing his party from the race.

The proposal came amid warnings from Smotrich that the participation of Amcha Yisrael could have serious consequences for the right-wing bloc if the party attracted a significant number of votes but failed to secure parliamentary representation.

Smotrich described the possibility as a national political disaster and warned, “The votes that will be burned below the electoral threshold will make the difference between victory and defeat in the election.”

Winter’s party has been among the smaller lists attracting attention during the final stages of the campaign, particularly because of concerns that its supporters could otherwise have voted for parties already represented in the Knesset.

Meanwhile, another small party announced Monday that it was withdrawing from the contest.

The Hakahal party, headed by attorney Shlomo Elboim, said it would no longer participate in the election, just one day before voters were scheduled to head to the polls.

In announcing its decision, the party stated, “The decision was made out of deep responsibility toward the Jewish people and its Torah, and out of a commitment to the success of the camp of those who observe Torah and mitzvos in the election.”

The withdrawal followed mounting pressure on smaller parties to reconsider their participation as the election approached.

Although such withdrawals may be intended to influence voter behavior, their practical electoral implications depend on the applicable election procedures and whether a party’s name can still appear on ballots after the deadline for formally withdrawing has passed.

The dispute over smaller parties has become particularly prominent within the chareidi community, where some voters have expressed dissatisfaction with the established political leadership over the draft controversy, the arrest of yeshiva bochurim, and other unresolved issues.

That dissatisfaction has created an opening for smaller political movements seeking to attract voters who identify with the chareidi community but do not feel adequately represented by the traditional parties.

Leaders of the larger right-wing parties have responded by warning that votes for lists unable to reach the electoral threshold could alter the parliamentary balance, even if those voters share many of their political priorities.

The mathematical consequences of the threshold are straightforward: Ballots cast for a party that fails to qualify for the Knesset do not contribute to that party receiving seats. However, the precise effect on other parties depends on the overall distribution of votes and the electoral arrangements governing seat allocation.

{Matzav.com}