Feed aggregator

A federal judge has ruled that members of an Orthodox shul in Maryland may carry firearms inside their shul for security purposes but cannot carry those same weapons while walking to and from the building, creating a difficult situation for Shabbos-observant congregants who are prohibited from driving.

The ruling, issued Tuesday, October 27, by U.S. District Judge Deborah K. Chasanow, represents the latest development in a legal battle between the Silver Spring Jewish Center, also known as Congregation Ahavas Yisrael, and Montgomery County over a law restricting firearms near houses of worship and other public gathering places.

Although the court previously granted the shul permission to maintain armed security inside its building, it has now refused to suspend a separate provision prohibiting firearms within 100 yards of designated public assembly locations, including shuls, schools, parks and other facilities.

The distinction has left members of the Orthodox congregation in an unusual predicament: They may legally carry firearms once inside the shul, but because they must walk there on Shabbos and Yom Tov, they cannot lawfully bring their weapons with them along routes covered by the restrictions.

“Although they can theoretically have firearms at the synagogue, they cannot carry them there when they walk on the days when they have to walk there,” Jacob Huebert, senior litigation counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which represents the congregation, told JNS.

The controversy began in July when Montgomery County enacted legislation prohibiting individuals from carrying firearms in or within 100 yards of designated places of public assembly. The law includes exceptions for certain authorized security personnel and for individuals transporting firearms in vehicles.

The measure was approved by the County Council on July 21 and signed into law by County Executive Marc Elrich on July 27.

County officials argued that the restrictions were necessary to reduce gun violence and improve public safety in sensitive locations, including schools and religious institutions.

The Silver Spring Jewish Center and Rav J. Menashe Shapiro challenged the ordinance in federal court, arguing that it violated their constitutional rights to religious freedom and armed self-defense.

The congregation had established an armed volunteer security team following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks in Eretz Yisroel, amid growing concerns about antisemitic violence in the United States. Its security volunteers include individuals with military and specialized firearms training.

In September, Judge Chasanow granted the congregation a preliminary injunction allowing members to carry firearms inside the shul, finding that the prohibition on weapons within houses of worship likely violated constitutional protections.

However, the judge declined to block enforcement of the 100-yard restriction surrounding public gathering places.

The congregation subsequently asked the court to reconsider that portion of the decision, arguing that the county’s rules unfairly burden Orthodox Jews by permitting motorists to transport firearms through restricted areas while preventing Shabbos-observant Jews from doing so on foot.

In Tuesday’s ruling, Chasanow rejected that argument.

The judge acknowledged that the plaintiffs had established religious obligations concerning self-defense within the shul and walking to shul on Shabbos and Yom Tov. However, she determined that they had not sufficiently demonstrated a separate religious requirement to carry firearms while making that journey.

The court also concluded that the 100-yard restrictions were neutral and generally applicable because they did not expressly target religious activity.

Huebert criticized the ruling, arguing that it places Orthodox Jews at a particular disadvantage because they cannot simply drive to shul with their weapons.

“Most other religions that I know of don’t require you to walk to the place of worship on the days when you go there to worship,” he told JNS. “So this law doesn’t affect their ability to carry a firearm to their place of worship and have it there, because they can drive there.”

“But since these people have to walk, they’re not able to fulfill their religious obligation to defend themselves and other members of the synagogue,” he added.

Huebert also maintained that the responsibility to protect Jewish lives does not end at the shul’s entrance.

“If you’re walking to the synagogue with your family, and you’re out and about, you have the same obligation and at least as much need, because you’re out in public,” he said.

Rav Shapiro similarly condemned the restrictions, arguing that the county’s ordinance discriminates against Orthodox Jewish residents who rely on walking to attend Shabbos and Yom Tov services.

He said the law “unfairly and unduly burdens Jewish religious firearms carriers” and violates both the First and Second Amendments.

The dispute comes amid heightened security concerns at Jewish institutions throughout the United States following a series of violent antisemitic incidents.

In May 2025, two Israeli Embassy employees were murdered outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C. The following month, an attacker targeted a gathering supporting Israeli hostages in Boulder, Colorado.

The Silver Spring Jewish Center has also cited security incidents closer to home, including an attack on a visibly Jewish congregant outside the shul in October 2024 and an attempted unauthorized entry into the building in June 2026.

Montgomery County is home to a substantial Orthodox Jewish population, with approximately 45% of Maryland’s Jewish residents living in the county.

The federal government’s Justice Department has also challenged the county’s firearms restrictions in separate litigation, raising constitutional objections to the legislation.

Tuesday’s decision does not conclude the broader legal dispute. The shul’s lawsuit remains ongoing, and the congregation may continue pursuing relief from the restrictions.

{Matzav.com}

Thailand has revoked the citizenship of Rav Yosef Chaim Kantor, the longtime Chabad shliach and chief rabbi of the country, in a stunning development affecting one of the most prominent figures in Jewish communal life in Southeast Asia.

Rav Kantor, who has spent more than three decades developing Jewish religious and communal infrastructure in Thailand, reportedly lost his naturalized Thai citizenship following a government determination concerning his continued use of an American passport.

The decision has raised concern within the international Jewish community, particularly given Rav Kantor’s longstanding role in serving Jewish residents, businesspeople and travelers throughout Thailand.

Chabad representatives have indicated that the matter is being addressed through legal channels and that the country’s Jewish institutions are continuing their activities.

The citizenship revocation was ordered Wednesday, October 28, by Thai Prime Minister and Interior Minister Anutin Charnvirakul. According to the Interior Ministry, Rav Kantor continued using his American citizenship for international travel after becoming a naturalized Thai citizen in 2013.

Thai investigators identified 16 occasions on which Rav Kantor allegedly used his American passport to enter or leave Australia. The most recent documented instance occurred on January 26, 2026.

Authorities cited Section 19(2) of Thailand’s Nationality Act of 1965, which permits the government to revoke naturalized citizenship when an individual continues using a previous nationality in violation of naturalization requirements.

Rav Kantor’s Thai citizenship was officially granted on April 11, 2013, and he received his first Thai identification card the following month. The government maintains that he was aware of the conditions attached to his naturalization.

On Thursday, Charnvirakul defended the decision, insisting that the government had acted in accordance with Thai law. Asked whether additional proceedings could follow, he referred questions to the relevant government agencies. No criminal charges were announced in connection with the citizenship order.

The development follows a series of government inspections and searches involving Chabad-affiliated institutions and businesses earlier this month.

On October 8, investigators from Thailand’s Department of Special Investigation, police, tax authorities and other government agencies searched several locations in Bangkok, including offices associated with the Chabad Foundation, Gan Chabad and the Jewish Association of Thailand.

The authorities examined business registration documents, property ownership records, donations and financial transactions as part of an investigation into possible violations of restrictions on foreign ownership of Thai businesses and real estate.

Investigators reportedly discovered records involving more than 60 companies registered at a single address, with some businesses sharing directors or shareholders. Officials are examining whether Thai citizens were used as nominal owners on behalf of foreign investors.

The citizenship order against Rav Kantor, however, was based specifically on his use of American nationality. Authorities have not announced criminal findings against him in connection with the separate financial and property investigations.

The government scrutiny has also extended to Chabad-related properties elsewhere in Thailand, including Phuket, where protests against Israeli visitors and businesses have intensified in recent months. Some demonstrations have included anti-Israel and antisemitic rhetoric.

Additional concern has arisen over a Jewish cemetery in Thailand, where authorities reportedly demanded the removal of Jewish remains following the expiration of the property’s operating license.

Rav Kantor arrived in Bangkok in 1993 with his family and subsequently developed an extensive network of Chabad centers serving Jewish residents and visitors throughout the country.

Under his leadership, Chabad established facilities providing minyanim, shiurim, kosher meals, Shabbos hospitality and assistance to Jewish travelers, including the large numbers of Israelis who visit Thailand annually.

Chabad of Thailand issued a statement expressing disappointment over the government’s decision while emphasizing its respect for the country’s laws and institutions.

“Rabbi Kantor has served the Jewish community in Thailand for more than 30 years, and Thailand is home to him and his family,” the organization said.

“We respect the Kingdom of Thailand, its laws and its institutions, and we are grateful for the hospitality it has extended over the years. We are saddened by the decision, and the matter is being addressed through the appropriate legal channels, with full confidence in the Thai system,” the statement continued.

Chabad also sought to reassure Jewish residents and visitors that its religious and communal operations would not be interrupted.

“Chabad centers in Thailand are operating as usual and will continue to warmly welcome every Jew and Israeli who comes here,” the organization said.

The citizenship revocation does not constitute a deportation order, and Thai authorities have not announced plans to remove Rav Kantor from the country. The matter is now being challenged through the appropriate legal channels.

Gadi Eisenkot, chairman of Israel’s Yashar party, announced Thursday that he intends to advance legislation requiring military or national service from all Israeli citizens as soon as the newly elected Knesset convenes, setting the stage for a confrontation with the chareidi parties even as the opposition struggles to assemble a governing majority.

Eisenkot made the announcement during a special public statement in which he sharply criticized Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and the Likud party, accusing them of attempting to undermine the legitimacy of Tuesday’s election results following reports of suspected foreign interference in the voting process.

The Yashar leader said his political team was already preparing several major legislative proposals, including a new military conscription law, the establishment of a state commission of inquiry into the October 7 massacre, and changes to government funding policies that would give preference to Israelis who serve in the military or perform national service.

“The plans are ready, and in coordination with my partners, we will work to bring them to a vote as soon as the Knesset session opens,” Eisenkot declared.

The announcement places the contentious issue of yeshiva student conscription at the forefront of the emerging political battle, despite the possibility that Eisenkot and other opposition leaders may ultimately need support from chareidi lawmakers to secure a parliamentary majority.

Earlier Thursday, Eisenkot met with Shin Bet director David Zini and Central Elections Committee chairman Justice Noam Sohlberg to receive updates concerning allegations of foreign interference in the elections.

Eisenkot acknowledged that investigators had not yet established the facts surrounding the allegations and cautioned against drawing premature conclusions.

“It is too early to understand what happened, or whether anything happened at all. The professionals must be allowed to complete their investigation without political interference,” he said.

Nevertheless, Eisenkot accused Netanyahu and Likud of exploiting the controversy to cast doubt on the election results.

“What is already clear is that Likud and Netanyahu have embarked on a coordinated and organized campaign to delegitimize the election results,” he charged.

“They are doing this because they lost. They do not have a majority,” Eisenkot added.

He also warned against any attempt to postpone the swearing-in of the newly elected Knesset, declaring, “I will not allow a deviation of even one centimeter from the scheduled inauguration of the Knesset.”

Eisenkot further accused Netanyahu of having used government institutions to advance his personal political interests, declaring, “The days when Netanyahu used the institutions of government against Israel’s interests and for his own personal needs are over.”

Despite Eisenkot’s forceful statements, the election results have produced a complicated parliamentary situation. Although parties outside Netanyahu’s existing coalition collectively hold a majority of Knesset seats, significant ideological divisions remain among them, particularly over whether a government should be established with the support of Arab parties.

Those disagreements could make the formation of an alternative government difficult, while Eisenkot’s proposed conscription legislation threatens to further complicate relations with the chareidi parties, whose support could prove crucial in determining the next government’s composition.

Eisenkot himself acknowledged that the election outcome had created a challenging political landscape.

“Israel is in a complex political situation. I intend to act as I always have — with composure and determination,” he said.

He concluded by urging Israelis to remain patient as the political negotiations unfold, offering a message of confidence in the possibility of a change in leadership.

“There is hope. We will bring it,” Eisenkot declared.

{Matzav.com}

Tensions inside Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s inner circle reportedly erupted on Israeli election day when his wife, Sara Netanyahu, confronted a senior aide and blamed him for the Likud party’s disappointing electoral performance, telling him that he should not return to the Prime Minister’s Office.

According to a report aired Thursday evening by Israel’s Channel 13 News, Sara Netanyahu directed her anger at Ido Norden, the acting chief of staff in the Prime Minister’s Office, as concerns mounted within Likud over the election results.

During the confrontation, Sara Netanyahu reportedly told Norden, “You have no reason to return to the office. We’re losing because of you.”

The reported exchange took place amid growing anxiety within Likud over the party’s showing in Tuesday’s elections, with senior figures attempting to assess the results and the political consequences for Netanyahu.

Norden had assumed the position of acting chief of staff following a series of personnel changes at the top of the Prime Minister’s Office. His appointment came after the removal of his predecessor, Tzachi Braverman, who had been sidelined amid allegations connected to a controversial late-night meeting with Eli Feldstein.

Sources within the Prime Minister’s Office cited by Channel 13 said that Norden has since been pushed out of Netanyahu’s immediate circle. According to those accounts, he is no longer accompanying the prime minister during trips in his official vehicle, a change suggesting that his standing within the office has deteriorated.

Meanwhile, Braverman was photographed alongside Netanyahu at a Likud election event, despite having previously been removed from his position in connection with the investigation surrounding his meeting with Feldstein.

Braverman’s appearance at the event attracted attention because of the ongoing tensions within Netanyahu’s office and the circumstances surrounding his earlier departure.

Channel 13 had reported a day earlier that Norden was already being excluded from certain discussions and consultations involving Netanyahu’s senior advisers. Individuals close to the prime minister were quoted as saying that Netanyahu and members of his inner circle were dissatisfied with Norden’s performance and that his continued tenure was uncertain.

Norden, who assumed the acting chief of staff position in April, previously spent approximately a decade as an economist at the Bank of Israel. He also held senior advisory and administrative positions in government, including roles connected to the Economy Ministry and Israel’s Innovation Authority.

In a separate development Thursday, Channel 12 reported that Norden had provided senior police officials with information that led to an investigation of three activists affiliated with the Arab Ra’am party over suspected election bribery. Law enforcement sources cited in that report suggested that the evidence was weak and unlikely to result in indictments.

The political tensions have intensified following Tuesday’s election, in which final results gave Netanyahu’s bloc 53 Knesset seats, compared with 67 for parties outside his bloc, leaving him short of the 61 seats needed to form a majority government.

The Prime Minister’s Office has denied the reports concerning Sara Netanyahu’s confrontation with Norden and the claims about his removal from the inner circle. It has also disputed reports suggesting that Norden is preparing to leave his position.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries declined Thursday to rule out pursuing impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump if Democrats gain control of the House in next week’s midterm elections, although he insisted that his party’s immediate priority would be addressing rising living costs.

During an interview with ABC News Live correspondent Jay O’Brien, the New York Democrat was pressed about whether impeachment could become part of his party’s agenda if voters return Democrats to power in Congress. Jeffries avoided making a commitment either way, instead emphasizing economic issues and congressional oversight of the administration.

“The American people are clearly poised to give House and Senate Democrats a chance to govern on their behalf, and to fight to actually make life more affordable. We have gained the trust advantage,” Jeffries said.

O’Brien questioned whether that perceived advantage reflected growing dissatisfaction with Trump rather than increased confidence in Democratic leadership.

“But is that just because they don’t trust the president?” the correspondent asked.

Jeffries rejected the suggestion that Democratic gains were based solely on opposition to Trump, arguing that voters increasingly preferred his party’s positions across multiple policy areas.

“No. Well, I think we’ve gained the trust advantage, Democrats, as compared to Republicans, on a whole host of issues,” he responded.

He maintained that Democrats would need to demonstrate their commitment to tackling the financial pressures facing American households.

“We’re going to have to work as hard as we can to make sure that we are relentlessly pushing to end this affordability crisis, because the American people are sending that message,” Jeffries added.

The discussion then turned to impeachment, with O’Brien pointing to Democratic candidates who have publicly raised the possibility of seeking Trump’s removal from office.

“Some of your members have openly talked about, over the course of these campaigns, impeaching the president. Is that something voters want?” O’Brien asked.

Jeffries played down the prominence of impeachment within his caucus, saying Democratic lawmakers had focused more broadly on holding the administration accountable and restoring congressional oversight.

“Well, it’s very interesting because I actually have not heard, coming from House Democrats, a lot of talk about impeachment. In fact, what we have talked about is accountability more broadly defined. And we believe that it is important for Congress to function as a check and balance on an out-of-control executive branch,” Jeffries said.

O’Brien followed up by asking whether an impeachment effort could divert attention from the economic agenda Jeffries had identified as his party’s principal objective.

“But would impeachment be a distraction from the work you’re trying to do?” he asked.

Jeffries again stopped short of rejecting the possibility, leaving Democrats’ options open should they secure a House majority.

“Well, we haven’t ruled anything in, and we haven’t ruled anything out, because we’ve made clear that we’re focused on addressing the affordability crisis,” he said.

Jeffries has taken a similar position in previous interviews, including a September appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” when he declined to exclude impeachment from the options available to a Democratic-controlled House. He has identified Reps. Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Robert Garcia of California as key figures who would oversee investigations through the House Judiciary and Oversight committees.

Democrats have been preparing a broad oversight agenda should they win the majority, including potential investigations into administration spending, the Trump family’s business dealings, immigration enforcement and the conduct of senior Cabinet officials. Some Democrats favor impeachment proceedings, while others have expressed concern that another attempt to remove Trump could distract from the party’s economic priorities.

Trump was impeached twice during his first presidency and acquitted by the Senate both times. A third impeachment would require a simple majority vote in the House, while removing him from office would require a two-thirds majority in the Senate following a trial.

Republicans currently control both chambers of Congress, but Democrats are seeking to overturn the GOP’s narrow House majority in Tuesday’s elections. A Democratic victory would give Jeffries’ party control of committee investigations, subpoena authority and the ability to initiate impeachment proceedings without Republican support.

Rav Shlomo Kanievsky, Rosh Yeshivas Kiryas Melech, delivered a pointed message to his bochurim following Israel’s elections, warning that continued involvement in political discussions and coalition speculation could indicate that their election activities had not been undertaken entirely l’shem Shomayim.

Speaking at a special vaad, the Rosh Yeshiva stressed that although participating in the elections in accordance with the directives of the Gedolei Yisroel had been a tremendous zechus, the time had now come to return to the shtender and devote themselves fully to Torah learning.

“The Rambam writes that a person may not involve himself in any matter unless he first establishes a condition that he knows that immediately upon finishing his involvement in that matter, he will return to his learning,” Rav Kanievsky said. “This applies even to matters that would seemingly involve upholding Yiddishkeit.”

“Now that the election campaign has concluded, Boruch Hashem, we were zocheh to be mekadeish Sheim Shomayim and to listen to the voice of the Gedolei Hador. But we must understand that now comes the time when every person can examine himself and determine whether everything he did for the elections was truly l’shem Shomayim, or whether other considerations were also involved.”

The Rosh Yeshiva then presented what he described as the decisive test of a person’s intentions.

“The test is whether he now returns to his learning with even greater strength. If he does, that is a sign that everything he previously did and accomplished had genuine meaning. But someone who continues discussing the situation, analyzing the numbers and debating what they mean demonstrates that even what he did earlier was not truly l’shem Shomayim.”

Rav Kanievsky pointed to the extraordinary example of the Gedolei Yisroel, who devoted precious time to the election campaign despite their advanced ages and demanding schedules.

“We know that the people whose time is most precious and most carefully accounted for are the Gedolei Yisroel. We know how they treasure every single moment. Yet we saw how they agreed to devote their valuable time, traveling from city to city and from place to place, to work for the success of the campaign, despite the enormous difficulty and exertion involved at their ages and in their conditions.”

“It is clear that if they did this, it means they viewed it as an absolute necessity. It is obvious to us that they did not do it for politics, for honor, or for any other reason, but solely to uphold Yiddishkeit and increase Kavod Shomayim, without any personal interests whatsoever.”

The Rosh Yeshiva acknowledged that ordinary individuals cannot necessarily claim the same purity of motivation.

“We are admittedly not on that level, and we do have an interest in political matters, personal interests and similar things. Nevertheless, I hope that even among us, there was at least some element of Kavod Shomayim, and that we all acted as the Gedolei Hador instructed us, without any hesitation or questioning.”

He then drew attention to another remarkable aspect of the gedolim’s conduct during the election campaign: their immediate return to learning whenever an opportunity presented itself.

“Even during the pressured and busy days before the elections, when they devoted their time to the success of the campaign and did everything possible to bring about the greatest possible Kiddush Hashem, at every free moment they immediately opened a Gemara and immersed themselves in learning.”

“We saw this with my father, Maran the Sar HaTorah, zechuso yagein aleinu, how one fulfills the Rambam’s instruction of v’yachzor l’talmudo. This was how we lived all those years. It was simply the natural way of life. There was nothing else.”

Rav Kanievsky then shared a personal recollection of his father, Maran Rav Chaim Kanievsky zt”l, illustrating how completely Torah learning occupied every available moment of his day.

“I remember that when my father would return from kollel, he would walk home and sit down beside the table. He had a shtender next to him. If the food was ready, we would begin eating. If it wasn’t ready, he would open a sefer and continue learning until the food was prepared. And when we finished eating, he would immediately return to learning.”

“V’yachzor l’talmudo was the reality of his life.”

Turning back to the election campaign, Rav Kanievsky acknowledged that the excitement and uncertainty of the political contest had naturally captured people’s attention.

“During the elections, perhaps it was somewhat difficult to demand such things, because it truly is an interesting subject, and everyone has his own interpretation of what is going to happen, who will win and who will lose.”

“But now, Boruch Hashem, it is not our responsibility to form the next coalition. And now, the demand of the hour for us is v’yachzor l’talmudo.”

The Rosh Yeshiva also addressed the effect that the elections had on the opening weeks of the winter zman, acknowledging that the campaign had interfered with the yeshiva’s usual momentum.

“It is no secret that because of the situation and the particular challenges we faced, the first two weeks of the zman were somewhat weaker than what we are ordinarily accustomed to at the beginning of a zman.”

“But we can decide that this year’s zman begins now. Especially since this is a leap year, we actually have more than five months, just as in a regular winter zman.”

Rav Kanievsky concluded by expressing hope that the bochurim would seize the opportunity for a fresh beginning.

“With Hashem’s help, we hope that HaKadosh Boruch Hu will grant us abundant siyata diShmaya, that we will have the strength to begin anew, receive fresh siyata diShmaya, and succeed.”

Immediately after delivering the vaad, Rav Kanievsky traveled to the airport to begin a fundraising trip on behalf of Yeshivas Kiryas Melech.

The trip had originally been planned for the beginning of the winter zman, around Rosh Chodesh, but was postponed until after the elections so that the Rosh Yeshiva could remain in Eretz Yisroel and participate in the voting in accordance with the directives of the Gedolei Yisroel.

{Matzav.com}

Vice President JD Vance declared Thursday that President Donald Trump will not allow the confrontation with Iran to become another prolonged American war, insisting that the administration intends to achieve its military and national security objectives without committing the United States to an indefinite conflict.

Appearing at a Fox News town hall in Fort Worth, Texas, just days before the November 3 midterm elections, Vance defended the administration’s approach to Iran amid growing speculation that Trump could authorize another round of military strikes against Tehran.

“We’ve been involved in Iran in some form for seven months. The United States has been dealing with Iran for 47 years, and I promise you that Donald Trump is not going to let Iran become a forever war,” Vance said.

JD Vance defends Trump's war of choice against Iran on the grounds that we've only been at war for 7 months so it's not fair to call it a "forever war" pic.twitter.com/rLEybcr3ts

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 30, 2026

The Vice President rejected the argument that opposition to lengthy foreign military campaigns should prevent the United States from using force when necessary. He maintained that there is a fundamental distinction between avoiding unnecessary overseas entanglements and refusing to deploy American military power altogether.

“I think there’s a difference between criticizing foreign military misadventures and saying that you can never ever use the American military,” he explained.

“If you’re worried about another forever war, Donald Trump is never going to let this be a forever war,” Vance added. “He’s going to accomplish America’s objectives, and then we’re going to focus on the other things that we’re doing.”

Vance’s assurances follow remarks he made to Reuters earlier this month outlining the administration’s requirements for bringing the conflict to an end. At the center of Washington’s demands is a substantial reduction in Iran’s uranium enrichment activities, which American officials regard as a critical test of Tehran’s nuclear intentions.

“If you don’t want a nuclear weapon, then why do you need 60% enriched fuel? And if you want to show commitment to not building a nuclear ⁠weapon, don’t build highly enriched fuel. That’s a very basic threshold issue,” Vance said.

“I think if they want to show a commitment to not building a nuclear weapon, they would do something meaningful on their enrichment capacity.”

“We’re not going to trade words for actions,” he emphasized.

Although the administration continues to demand concrete restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program, Vance has indicated that Washington remains prepared to negotiate an agreement if Tehran demonstrates a genuine willingness to comply.

His comments come as reports emerge of renewed communication between American and Iranian officials, raising questions about whether diplomatic efforts could prevent another military escalation.

The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that Vance had communicated with Mohsen Rezaei, a senior Iranian security official known for his hardline positions, in an attempt to establish a possible route back to negotiations.

According to the newspaper, the outreach was undertaken at Trump’s direction and was intended to explore the structure of potential talks rather than settle the details of a peace agreement.

Trump, however, challenged that characterization Wednesday, saying the communication concerned humanitarian assistance and denying that he had authorized Vance to initiate peace negotiations.

“No. They need help with medical supplies and various things. He asked me what I thought. I said, ‘If you want to do that, that’s okay’. Basically, it’s getting supplies in to help people that are not well.”

At the same time, the Pentagon is reviewing preparations for possible additional strikes. The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Adm. Brad Cooper, commander of U.S. Central Command, personally briefed Trump at the White House on military options involving Iran and the ongoing American naval blockade.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine and other senior administration officials attended the meeting, which followed discussions between military leaders and Vance a day earlier.

Cooper’s visit was particularly noteworthy because the CENTCOM commander does not routinely present military options to the president in person. The unusual briefing comes as Washington weighs the possibility of renewed combat operations following the midterm elections.

American forces have also been reinforcing their regional defenses, increasing supplies of ammunition and repositioning personnel away from installations considered vulnerable to Iranian retaliation. Reports indicate that Gulf Arab governments have been advised to prepare for the possibility of a brief but intensive American military campaign.

Despite those preparations, diplomatic efforts remain active. Regional intermediaries, including Qatar, have been working to facilitate renewed negotiations, while American officials continue pressing Iran to accept meaningful restrictions on its nuclear program.

No final decision to resume large-scale strikes has been announced.

{Matzav.com}

Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz warned Thursday that Rep. Ilhan Omar could still face criminal prosecution, possible loss of citizenship and even deportation over allegations surrounding a previous marriage, despite an earlier federal investigation that ended without charges.

Appearing on Newsmax’s “The Record With Greta Van Susteren,” Dershowitz disputed the argument that the statute of limitations necessarily prevents prosecutors from pursuing the Minnesota Democrat. He also predicted that the controversy could eventually force Omar to resign from Congress or face an effort to remove her from office.

His comments followed a New York Times report revealing that FBI and Department of Homeland Security investigators uncovered some evidence suggesting possible fraud during a 2016 examination of Omar’s 2009 marriage to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, a British citizen.

“This is not a simple crime. This is a complex and potentially continuing crime,” Dershowitz said.

“So I think it’s still an open, possible open case for criminal prosecution, for denaturalization, for deportation, all of those.”

According to the Times, federal prosecutors decided against filing charges in 2016 after determining that the applicable five-year statute of limitations had expired. Dershowitz challenged that interpretation, arguing that a continuing conspiracy could potentially extend the period during which criminal charges may be brought.

“No, it has never run,” he said.

“If it’s a conspiracy and the conspiracy continues, and she and a status has changed and remains changed based on continuing fraudulent allegations.

“If that can be proved, there are many cases where the statute of limitations for conspiracy goes beyond the usual five years.”

The allegations center on whether Omar married Elmi in 2009 to help him secure immigration benefits. Investigators reportedly examined suspicions that Elmi was actually Omar’s brother, an accusation she has repeatedly rejected as a conspiracy theory.

Omar and Elmi separated in 2011, although their divorce was not finalized until 2017. A spokesperson for the congresswoman told Fox News Digital that the earlier federal inquiry had been closed because investigators lacked sufficient evidence.

Dershowitz also criticized Barack Obama for denouncing the renewed investigation, pointing out that the original federal examination took place during Obama’s presidency. Obama has described the current probe as “appalling.”

“It’s hypocrisy. It was his administration that said this was a serious matter,” he said.

“Even if it were to be barred by the statute of limitations, it would still be a serious matter, and it could still be made public and pursued. And that’s why I have predicted that in the end, I don’t think she has any choice but to either resign from the House or to be barred from sitting in the House,” he said.

Under congressional rules, expelling a sitting member requires the approval of two-thirds of the House of Representatives. Dershowitz suggested that Omar could face difficulties securing unified support from fellow Democrats if the allegations continue to receive scrutiny.

“Many of them are not supporting her on this, and they shouldn’t support her on this,” he said.

The Trump administration has reopened the federal investigation, with authorities reportedly searching Omar’s Washington residence on October 12. Her office has condemned the renewed inquiry as politically motivated and accused the administration of pursuing a vendetta against the congresswoman.

Omar has not been charged with any criminal offense, and the allegations concerning her relationship with Elmi remain disputed.

Additional reporting Thursday revealed that the earlier investigation continued to attract attention after 2016. Fox News reported that a federal prosecutor appointed during the Biden administration closed the inquiry in 2021, according to a person familiar with the case.

The current federal investigation extends beyond Omar’s marriage to Elmi. Investigators are also examining whether she or members of her family provided inaccurate information in immigration and citizenship documents. Several relatives have reportedly received grand jury subpoenas.

The Justice Department has meanwhile asked a federal judge to keep the affidavit supporting the October 12 search of Omar’s home under seal, arguing that releasing the material could interfere with an active investigation. Prosecutors have indicated that they are still reviewing evidence and have not determined whether charges will be filed.

Omar’s attorneys have challenged the search, alleging that federal investigators failed to comply with judicial safeguards protecting her constitutional rights as a member of Congress. The Justice Department disputes that accusation and maintains that investigators followed the court-approved procedures.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo strongly defended the joint American-Israeli military campaign against Iran on Thursday, declaring that the operation should have been launched years earlier and warning that prolonged inaction had allowed Tehran to develop increasingly dangerous military capabilities.

In an interview with Al Arabiya, Pompeo praised President Donald Trump’s decision to authorize the offensive that began in February, arguing that successive administrations had waited far too long to confront the Iranian regime. Asked whether he supported the military operation from the outset, Pompeo responded without hesitation.

“A hundred percent. What actually went through my mind is it was seven years too late, or maybe 17 years too late,” he replied.

“This was a long-delayed effort. It was a deferred liability on the international balance sheet, and thank God President Trump made that choice to go after it,” Pompeo added.

Pompeo, who served as Trump’s Secretary of State during his first administration, maintained that an earlier military confrontation could have prevented Iran from substantially expanding its arsenal of drones and ballistic missiles.

He specifically pointed to Tehran’s acquisition of what he described as “Shia drones” and its progress in developing medium-range ballistic missiles, arguing that the international community had permitted those threats to grow through years of insufficient action.

The former Secretary of State also criticized the nuclear agreement negotiated under President Barack Obama in 2015, suggesting that the deal had failed to address the broader military threat posed by Iran.

Pompeo warned that postponing military action for several more years could have allowed Tehran to develop defenses and weapons systems resembling those of North Korea, making any future attempt to neutralize its nuclear infrastructure considerably more difficult.

He said an additional two to five years of delay might have left Washington facing “a conventional weapon system surrounding a nuclear program that is nearly impossible to touch.”

Pompeo expressed hope that the pressure generated by the military campaign would ultimately force Iran’s leadership to reconsider its policies and make fundamental changes to the regime’s conduct.

“I remember thinking, I hope we stay at this until this regime has to make a fundamentally difficult decision and change its nature,” he said.

Pompeo’s comments come as the Trump administration considers whether to resume major military operations against Iran after the November 3 midterm elections. American officials have reportedly advised several Middle Eastern allies to prepare for possible strikes and Iranian retaliation, including attacks on regional energy infrastructure.

On Thursday, U.S. Central Command chief Adm. Brad Cooper briefed Trump and senior administration officials at the White House on military options involving Iran and the continuing American naval blockade. The administration is simultaneously exploring diplomatic avenues, with regional mediators attempting to secure an agreement that could avert another round of fighting.

Pompeo has consistently advocated maintaining pressure on Tehran. In a separate interview Thursday, he predicted that the combination of economic sanctions, the naval blockade and potential additional military operations could eventually bring down the Iranian regime.

Former Secretary of State John Kerry warned Thursday that President Donald Trump would be making a serious mistake by launching another round of military strikes against Iran, arguing that renewed attacks would damage prospects for a negotiated agreement with Tehran and further destabilize the Middle East.

Speaking with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, Kerry responded to reports that Trump was weighing additional military operations against Iran following next week’s U.S. midterm elections. He argued that an escalation would make Iranian leaders less willing to engage in negotiations rather than pressure them into accepting American demands.

“Unfortunately, things are so unpredictable that just about anything can happen,” Kerry said. “I think it would be an enormous mistake just to open up post-election with a military barrage. That is not what will impress the Iranians or bring them to the table in a more serious way. In fact, it will push them away.”

Kerry, who served as Secretary of State in the Obama administration and played a leading role in negotiating the 2015 Iranian nuclear agreement, also renewed his criticism of Trump’s 2018 decision to abandon that accord. He questioned why the administration had not attempted to negotiate revisions to the agreement before turning to military force.

“If President Trump really wanted to change and make a better agreement, why didn’t he put something on the table?” Kerry queried. “Why didn’t he actually make a proposal and have the Iranians respond to it or gain into another negotiation?

“No, he rushed into a war, particularly in the last months, with a whole bunch of false assumptions that have made life more expensive and more dangerous for people all over the world.”

The former Secretary of State contended that the administration’s military campaign had diminished America’s diplomatic leverage, leaving Washington with fewer opportunities to extract additional concessions from Iran.

He accused Trump of having “put himself in a very disadvantaged position from which to try to negotiate,” while maintaining that a diplomatic settlement similar to the Obama-era nuclear agreement could still be possible.

Kerry said the United States might eventually “get back to very close to the agreement we had,” but suggested that Iran would be unlikely to accept significantly tougher restrictions after enduring American attacks and major losses within its leadership.

“I do not think after being bombed, after having the Ayatollah killed, the wife killed … so many disruptions within the region, I don’t think it’s going to be very easy to come in and argue you’re going to get more than they’d already agreed to – which the world said was sufficient,” he said. “But maybe you can get a piece here and there. I certainly hope you can.”

Kerry also disputed the notion that military operations alone could permanently eliminate Iran’s nuclear threat, emphasizing that destroying physical facilities would not erase the scientific expertise required to rebuild the program.

“You can’t bomb the memory of how to make a bomb,” said Kerry.

He instead advocated a diplomatic initiative involving both public negotiations and confidential communications with Iranian officials, arguing that multiple channels could improve the prospects for an agreement.

“I think that the key here is really engaging in real diplomacy. And real diplomacy could be several tracks at the same time: one more public and one very private, coordinated clearly,” he added.

Kerry’s remarks also revive longstanding controversy surrounding his own dealings with Iranian officials after leaving government. During Trump’s first administration, he faced criticism for meeting with Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister at the time, as part of an effort to preserve the nuclear agreement despite the administration’s opposition.

Kerry acknowledged those discussions but defended his conduct, arguing that “every” former Secretary of State maintains contacts with foreign leaders. He also claimed that other individuals had encouraged Iranian officials to wait until the Trump administration was no longer in power.

The disagreement dates back to the early years of Trump’s presidency. In 2017, Kerry publicly cautioned that withdrawing from the nuclear agreement could increase the risk of Iran pursuing nuclear weapons, a position that has remained central to his criticism of Trump’s Iran policy.

The warning came as Washington continued preparing for the possibility of renewed fighting while pursuing indirect diplomatic contacts with Tehran. On Thursday, U.S. Central Command chief Adm. Brad Cooper briefed Trump on the effectiveness of the American naval blockade of Iran and the military situation in the region.

Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance had recently sent a message to Iranian security official Mohsen Rezaei. Trump said Thursday that the communication concerned assistance with medical supplies rather than an effort to restart peace negotiations. Iranian officials indicated that any diplomatic breakthrough would require Washington to address Tehran’s demands, including relief from the blockade and restrictions on Iranian oil exports.

The nuclear issue remains a central obstacle. International Atomic Energy Agency chief Rafael Grossi told the United Nations Security Council this week that inspectors had found no evidence of Iran rebuilding nuclear facilities damaged in American and Israeli strikes, but warned that the agency still lacked access needed to verify the status of Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile.

{Matzav.com}

LISTEN:

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

LISTEN:

Polymarket has launched an investigation into potentially suspicious betting activity surrounding Israel’s Knesset election after hundreds of newly established cryptocurrency accounts placed wagers favoring Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his Likud party shortly before voting ended Tuesday. Some of the traders subsequently collected combined profits exceeding $100,000, raising questions about whether they possessed advance knowledge of the election results.

According to a Bloomberg report published Thursday, an examination of blockchain transactions uncovered more than 600 digital wallets established on the same day that were used to wager on Netanyahu retaining the premiership or Likud finishing as the largest party in the Knesset.

The transactions attracted attention because they were made shortly before polling stations closed, when the eventual election outcome remained uncertain. Investigators are examining whether the unusual concentration of bets reflected access to information that had not yet been released to the public.

The value of the wagers increased sharply after Israeli television networks published their exit polls, which suggested that Likud had performed considerably better than some earlier projections indicated. Several of the accounts subsequently cashed out, generating more than $100,000 in combined profits, while other traders continued holding positions carrying significant potential gains.

Polymarket’s internal investigative team confirmed to Bloomberg that it was examining dozens of recently created wallets associated with the election wagers.

Independent blockchain analysis companies have also begun scrutinizing the activity. Polysights and Bubblemaps identified unusual transaction patterns, prompting separate investigations into the origins and timing of the bets.

Bubblemaps told Reuters that it had identified 101 Polymarket accounts that received their first funding on Election Day, before the polls had closed. A representative of the company said some of those accounts had already sold their positions for a profit after the exit poll results became public.

The suspicious transactions occurred during an election that left Israel’s political future unresolved, with neither Netanyahu’s right-wing and chareidi bloc nor the opposition securing enough Knesset seats to establish a government independently.

For several months before the vote, prediction markets had generally favored opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot over Netanyahu as the likely next prime minister. That assessment changed dramatically once the exit polls were released Tuesday night.

According to Bloomberg, Netanyahu’s implied probability of becoming prime minister climbed to 54%, while Eisenkot’s dropped to 23%, reflecting the sudden shift in expectations among traders.

Polymarket operates a prediction market in which participants purchase and sell contracts tied to the outcomes of elections, political developments, and other events. Its international platform uses cryptocurrency transactions recorded on a publicly accessible blockchain, allowing outside researchers to track wallet activity and examine patterns that may suggest coordinated trading.

The investigation is unfolding amid growing concerns that prediction markets could be exploited by individuals who possess sensitive government or military information before it becomes publicly known.

Earlier this year, Israeli prosecutors charged a military reservist and a civilian with allegedly using classified information about Israeli operations against Iran to make profitable wagers on Polymarket.

A separate American case involves a U.S. soldier accused of using confidential military information to place bets connected to an American operation in Venezuela. The soldier has pleaded not guilty.

Although the Israeli election wagers have drawn scrutiny because of their timing, concentration, and profitability, investigators have not determined that the traders relied on confidential information. Accurate political forecasts and independent analysis could also account for successful bets.

There is likewise no indication that the suspicious Polymarket transactions affected the actual Israeli election or involved interference with the counting of votes. The investigation is focused on whether traders improperly profited from information unavailable to the general public.

Bloomberg’s examination also identified one newly opened account that could earn approximately $180,000 if both its Netanyahu and Likud wagers prove successful. The account reportedly received nearly $40,000 from cryptocurrency wallets previously flagged for suspicious activity, including connections to sanctioned addresses.

The controversy has also attracted attention in Washington. On Thursday, Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Republican Sen. John Curtis of Utah raised concerns about whether prediction-market operators have adequate safeguards against insider trading and manipulation.

“The identification of isolated instances of improper trading does not demonstrate that these markets are adequately protected,” the senators wrote. “Instead, it raises serious questions about how much similar activity may be going undetected.”

Israel is facing a difficult political stalemate following the elections for the 26th Knesset, with neither Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu nor opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot commanding the 61 seats needed to establish a governing coalition. The results have left both camps searching for potential partners, with the possibility of a broad unity government or another round of elections looming over the negotiations.

Eisenkot’s Yashar party emerged with 21 seats, making it the second-largest faction in the Knesset. Together with the Together alliance, the Democrats, and Yisrael Beytenu, the anti-Netanyahu camp controls 48 seats. If the eight members of Ra’am, the Islamist United Arab List, were to support Eisenkot, his potential parliamentary backing would rise to 56 seats.

Although that would give Eisenkot more support than Netanyahu’s existing coalition partners, it would still leave him five seats short of a majority. Moreover, assembling such an alliance would require cooperation among parties with sharply conflicting positions on fundamental political and security questions.

One of the principal obstacles is Yisrael Beytenu chairman Avigdor Liberman, who has previously ruled out political arrangements dependent on Arab parties. Other members of the opposition have also expressed reservations about such cooperation, leaving considerable uncertainty over whether Eisenkot could assemble even a minority government supported by Ra’am from outside the coalition.

Netanyahu faces a different challenge. His bloc of right-wing and chareidi parties holds 53 seats, leaving him eight short of the 61 required for a majority.

One possibility would involve bringing Naftali Bennett’s seven-member faction, currently part of the joint Together alliance with Yair Lapid, into Netanyahu’s coalition. However, that arrangement would bring the prime minister to only 60 seats, still one short of a majority.

The same difficulty would arise if Netanyahu persuaded Liberman’s Yisrael Beytenu, which also holds seven seats, to join his government. Such an agreement would not provide sufficient parliamentary support unless at least one additional Knesset member or faction joined.

A more substantial realignment could give Netanyahu the numbers he needs. If the entire 12-seat Together alliance agreed to enter his coalition, his bloc would expand to 65 seats, providing a workable majority.

Such an arrangement, however, would require major political concessions. Bennett and Lapid have significant disagreements with Netanyahu and his current coalition partners, and any agreement would likely involve demands concerning government policy, ministerial appointments, and the composition of the coalition.

Netanyahu could consequently face pressure to exclude some of his traditional allies, including chareidi parties, as a condition for securing the participation of opposition factions. That would represent a major political reversal and could generate considerable opposition within Likud and the existing right-wing bloc.

Another possibility being discussed is a national unity government involving Likud and Eisenkot’s Yashar party. With Likud holding 26 seats and Yashar controlling 21, the two factions together would command 47 seats, creating the foundation for a potentially broad coalition if additional parties agreed to participate.

Negotiating such an agreement would nevertheless present substantial challenges, particularly over the identity of the prime minister, the distribution of senior cabinet positions, and differences in policy between the two parties.

Reports have suggested that Netanyahu is considering a power-sharing arrangement with Eisenkot that could include a rotation of the premiership. No agreement has been announced, and it remains uncertain whether either leader would accept the concessions necessary to make such a deal possible.

The election results have therefore produced an unusual political balance. Eisenkot could potentially assemble a larger grouping of supporters if Ra’am agreed to cooperate, but would still lack a majority. Netanyahu retains a more cohesive bloc, yet cannot cross the 61-seat threshold merely by recruiting one of the seven-seat opposition factions.

The coming negotiations will determine whether either leader can persuade political rivals to abandon longstanding commitments and enter a new coalition arrangement. Should those efforts fail, Israel could face another election without having resolved the divisions that produced the current impasse.

Additional reporting Thursday indicated that the political divisions were already affecting negotiations. Liberman reiterated that he would not join a government headed by Netanyahu or one dependent on Arab parties, while Eisenkot and Bennett met to discuss possibilities for establishing an alternative coalition.

President Isaac Herzog has urged political leaders to consider compromise rather than force Israelis back to the polls. The official election results are scheduled to be certified on November 4, after which Herzog will begin consultations with the parties before assigning a candidate the task of forming a government.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump received a high-level military briefing Thursday from the commander of U.S. Central Command, Adm. Brad Cooper, concerning possible new attacks against Iran, as the administration weighs another major military operation against Tehran following next week’s midterm elections.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Cooper traveled to the White House to present military options to the president during a meeting attended by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine, and other senior administration officials.

The discussions also covered additional security matters, including the continuing American blockade of Iran. The briefing was particularly notable because Cooper, who oversees U.S. military operations throughout the Middle East, does not ordinarily meet with Trump in person.

The meeting followed another round of consultations Wednesday involving Cooper, Vice President JD Vance, and senior military officials at the White House. Cooper previously participated in discussions with Trump, Hegseth, and Caine aboard Air Force One in Delaware in July.

Neither the Pentagon nor CENTCOM offered details about Thursday’s meeting, with representatives of both declining to address the report.

The latest consultations come as Washington reportedly prepares for the possibility of renewed large-scale military action against Iran after the November 3 elections. Earlier this week, The Wall Street Journal reported that American officials had alerted several Gulf Arab governments to prepare for a potentially brief but intense U.S. military campaign.

As part of those preparations, American forces have reportedly been reinforcing air defense systems throughout the region while moving personnel away from installations considered particularly exposed to possible Iranian counterattacks.

Trump has refused to disclose whether he intends to authorize another round of strikes, although he has strongly defended his administration’s previous military campaign against Iran.

Speaking at a campaign rally in Texas on Tuesday, the president said he had no regrets about ordering earlier attacks on Iranian targets.

“Somebody asked me yesterday, it’s very interesting, ‘If you had to do it again, would you have attacked Iran?’ I said absolutely,” Trump told supporters.

“It’s one of the greatest things I ever did,” he added.

Trump also insisted that he would determine when the confrontation with Iran concludes, maintaining that any agreement must guarantee that the Islamic Republic never acquires nuclear weapons.

“Somebody asked me before, when will the war in Iran end? I said, whenever I want it to end. It’ll be very quick, but we have to have it end properly, with total and complete – a total statement, they will never have a nuclear weapon. Number one state sponsor [of terrorism]. They will never have a nuclear weapon.”

At the same time, the administration has kept open a diplomatic channel to Tehran. The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that Vance had communicated with Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council and a former commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Vance reportedly sent Rezaei a letter exploring whether negotiations between the two countries could resume. An individual familiar with the communication claimed that Trump had authorized the outreach and was aware of the effort.

The president, however, rejected the suggestion that he had directed Vance to initiate peace negotiations, explaining Wednesday that the communication concerned humanitarian assistance and medical supplies.

“No. They need help with medical supplies and various things. He asked me what I thought. I said, ‘If you want to do that, that’s okay’. Basically, it’s getting supplies in to help people that are not well.”

Additional reporting Thursday provided more details about the White House meeting. According to Axios, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and presidential envoy Steve Witkoff were also present, and Trump specifically sought Cooper’s assessment of whether the American naval blockade was achieving its objectives. The admiral also discussed U.S. efforts to escort oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz and the economic pressure campaign against Tehran.

Meanwhile, Iranian media confirmed Thursday that Tehran had received Vance’s letter but had not yet issued a response. Iranian officials continued to demand the removal of the American naval blockade, relief from oil sanctions, and the release of frozen Iranian funds before negotiations could proceed.

U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack offered a more optimistic assessment Thursday, telling CNN that Washington and Tehran were approaching a possible agreement to reduce tensions.

“I think we’re very close to finally getting to a place where we can say, ‘Let’s just have a timeout,'” Barrack said. “We’re not going to have an overall solution immediately, but we can allow the region to find its own pace.”

The White House has not announced a decision to resume military strikes, and Thursday’s briefing does not establish that an attack has been ordered.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has fired one of the Pentagon’s highest-ranking military strategists following allegations that he leaked classified information about the American war against Iran, the conflict in Ukraine, and other sensitive military matters to journalists, in a dramatic dismissal that comes as President Donald Trump considers launching another round of strikes against Tehran.

Army Lt. Gen. Brett Sylvia, who served as director of strategy, plans, and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was abruptly removed from his position this week after an investigation into suspected unauthorized disclosures of classified material. Pentagon officials say the case has been referred to the Justice Department for possible criminal prosecution.

A senior Pentagon official accused Sylvia of failing three separate polygraph examinations concerning alleged disclosures of classified information to members of the news media. The official said Hegseth determined that immediate action was necessary to protect national security.

“The extent of his leaking became so critical that Secretary Hegseth took immediate action and fired Sylvia in order to protect national security. Urgent action was needed and could not wait another second,” the official said.

The allegations have not been established in court, and Sylvia has not been publicly charged with a crime. Other Pentagon sources have disputed the accusations, while an associate of Sylvia has said that the general denied leaking classified information.

The dismissal was confirmed Thursday by Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell, who said an extensive investigation by the Air Force Office of Special Investigations had resulted in personnel action.

“Following an extensive Air Force OSI investigation, the Department took necessary personnel action to protect sensitive information,” Parnell said.

“To protect the integrity of the investigation, no further comment will be made regarding the individual or the circumstances of this action.”

Parnell added that the matter, along with other suspected leaks, had been referred to the Justice Department for possible further action.

“Classified information is not personal property. Leaking it for personal, political or professional gain is a betrayal of the trust placed in those responsible for keeping it,” he declared.

“Our commitment was not an empty promise. We vowed to find you, and we meant it.”

Sylvia occupied a particularly sensitive position within the Pentagon. As head of the Joint Staff’s Directorate for Strategy, Plans, and Policy, commonly known as J5, he was responsible for helping develop long-term military strategy and advising Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The office plays an important role in coordinating military planning and evaluating the strategic consequences of American operations around the world.

The allegations against Sylvia reportedly involve classified information concerning the war with Iran, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and other national security matters. Officials have not publicly identified the specific documents or operational details he is accused of disclosing.

One Pentagon official also alleged that Sylvia met with journalists outside the Pentagon after Hegseth imposed tighter restrictions on reporters’ movements inside the building.

The general’s removal comes at an especially sensitive moment for the American military, with the Trump administration reportedly preparing options for renewed attacks against Iranian targets following next Tuesday’s midterm elections.

American military officials have been examining the possibility of another intensive bombing campaign, while additional U.S. forces have been moving into the Middle East.

The Pentagon has expressed particular frustration over leaks concerning the Iran war, including disclosures about military planning, weapons expenditures, and the depletion of American munitions stockpiles.

A recent internal military analysis reportedly estimated that replacing munitions already expended against Iran would cost more than $29 billion, representing a substantial portion of the overall cost of American operations.

Although Sylvia’s position involved major strategic responsibilities, one Pentagon official maintained that he was not a central planner of the Iran campaign, which falls primarily under U.S. Central Command and its commander, Adm. Brad Cooper.

President Trump addressed the dismissal Thursday while speaking to reporters, emphasizing his administration’s determination to identify officials who disclose sensitive information.

“We’re very much looking for leakers,” Trump said.

The president also warned that the individual involved would face serious consequences, although he mistakenly referred to Sylvia as a woman.

“We’re very much looking for leakers, and she’s going to have big problems, long-term problems,” Trump said.

The controversy took another unusual turn when the Joint Staff withdrew a statement it had issued following Sylvia’s removal.

The original statement expressed appreciation for the general’s lengthy military career, extending the military’s “deepest gratitude to Lt. Gen. Brett Sylvia and his family for their 32 years of distinguished service to our nation.”

Hours later, the statement was retracted.

“Upon further review, we determined that the statement did not appropriately reflect the full circumstances,” a Joint Staff spokesperson explained.

The spokesperson added that officials would refrain from further comment out of respect for the ongoing personnel process.

Sylvia is a decorated combat veteran who graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1994 and served for more than three decades in the Army.

Before joining the Joint Staff, he commanded the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and served in multiple combat deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

His military decorations include six Bronze Star Medals, including one awarded for valor, and a Purple Heart for wounds sustained in combat.

His dismissal is the latest in a series of high-profile removals of senior military officers under Hegseth, who has undertaken an aggressive effort to reshape Pentagon leadership and crack down on unauthorized disclosures.

Sylvia is the second officer to be removed from the J5 leadership position during Hegseth’s tenure. His predecessor, Lt. Gen. Joseph McGee, was also forced out.

Hegseth has made identifying suspected leakers a central priority, establishing a joint initiative with the Justice Department to investigate unauthorized disclosures and introducing broader use of polygraph examinations among senior officials.

The administration has also tightened Pentagon media access, requiring journalists to be escorted through certain areas and imposing restrictions that prompted numerous reporters to surrender their press credentials rather than accept the new conditions.

Last year, three senior Pentagon aides were removed amid a separate leak investigation. Those officials subsequently disputed the allegations against them and criticized the manner in which their departures were handled.

Sylvia’s firing represents one of the most consequential actions in Hegseth’s campaign against suspected leaks because of the general’s senior rank and his access to sensitive military planning.

It remains unclear whether federal prosecutors will bring charges against Sylvia, what specific classified information investigators believe was disclosed, or whether additional Pentagon personnel are under investigation.

{Matzav.com}

Alvin K. Hellerstein, a prominent Orthodox Jewish federal judge who presided over some of the nation’s most consequential legal proceedings, including cases involving President Donald Trump, Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, and the September 11 terrorist attacks, passed away Wednesday at the age of 92.

Judge Hellerstein, who served on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for nearly three decades, was widely respected for his legal scholarship, judicial independence, and deep commitment to Yiddishkeit. Throughout his career, he spoke openly about the influence of his religious beliefs on his understanding of justice and his responsibilities on the federal bench.

“As a judge, and as a Jew, I consider that everything I do reflects God and affects His image,” Hellerstein wrote in a 2013 law review article.

His observance of Shabbos was an integral part of his judicial life. He once explained that he deliberately scheduled sentencing hearings for Fridays so that he could spend Shabbos reflecting on whether he had treated defendants fairly and reached the correct decisions.

Born in New York City, Hellerstein graduated from Columbia University and subsequently earned his law degree from Columbia Law School, where he served as an editor of the law review. He later served in the U.S. Army’s Judge Advocate General’s Corps before entering private practice.

For 38 years, he practiced law at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, developing an extensive legal career before President Bill Clinton nominated him to the federal judiciary in 1998. He assumed senior status in 2011 but continued hearing major cases until shortly before his passing.

Among his most significant judicial assignments was overseeing much of the civil litigation arising from the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. The proceedings involved wrongful death claims, property damage disputes, and complex questions of liability stemming from the destruction of the Twin Towers.

More recently, Hellerstein presided over the federal prosecution of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, who faced charges involving drug trafficking and torture.

The judge also became a central figure in several legal battles involving President Trump.

In one closely watched case, Hellerstein rejected Trump’s efforts to transfer his New York state criminal conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records to federal court, where the president sought to have the prosecution dismissed on presidential immunity grounds.

In another high-profile ruling in 2020, Hellerstein ordered the release of Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen from federal custody. The judge determined that federal authorities had retaliated against Cohen over his plans to publish a book critical of Trump by attempting to revoke his home confinement and return him to prison.

Beyond those politically sensitive proceedings, Hellerstein handled major financial fraud, securities, and market manipulation cases during his years on the bench.

His passing prompted tributes from colleagues who praised his dedication to the federal judiciary.

“Judge Hellerstein was an insightful and dedicated lawyer,” said Laura Taylor Swain, chief judge of the Southern District of New York. “His energetic and dedicated service to this court continued until his death. He is greatly appreciated and will be sorely missed.”

Outside the courtroom, Hellerstein was deeply involved in Jewish communal life. He served as president of the Jewish Center, a prominent Modern Orthodox congregation on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, and held leadership positions as president and chairman of the Board of Jewish Education.

His commitment to Torah values and his understanding of the obligations of a Jewish judge were subjects he frequently discussed.

Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz, who knew Hellerstein personally, previously described him as an exceptionally capable jurist and a deeply committed Jew.

“He’s a great judge—fair and well-balanced,” Dershowitz told JNS. “He’s also a great tennis player, even in his late 80s and early 90s, and a real mensch.”

In a separate interview earlier this year, Dershowitz emphasized the principles that guided Hellerstein’s judicial philosophy.

“He’s a deeply committed Jew and a deeply principled lawyer,” Dershowitz said.

“He understands two things from the Bible. No. 1, ‘Tzedek, tzedek tirdof,’ you must always seek justice,” Dershowitz said. “No. 2, ‘Lo takir panim,’ don’t recognize faces.”

The two principles, drawn from Parshas Shoftim, reflect the Torah’s command to pursue justice and its prohibition against showing favoritism in judgment.

Hellerstein’s unusual combination of religious devotion, decades of legal experience, and involvement in some of America’s most prominent court proceedings made him a distinctive figure in the federal judiciary.

He remained active on the bench into his 90s, continuing to hear difficult and nationally significant cases long after many of his contemporaries had retired.

A congressional investigation has accused the American Psychological Association, one of the country’s most influential mental health organizations, of allowing anti-Israel activists to dominate its internal policies, marginalize Jewish psychologists, and weaken efforts to confront antisemitism, including by removing references to terrorism from its response to the October 7 Hamas massacre.

The findings, released Thursday by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, are based on internal emails, organizational records, and communications involving senior APA officials. The report alleges that political activism has increasingly influenced an organization representing approximately 190,000 psychologists and other members of the profession.

The investigation comes as an advisory committee to the U.S. Department of Education has recommended suspending the APA’s accreditation recognition for one year, raising additional questions about the organization’s standing as a national authority on professional psychology standards.

“For an organization dedicated to understanding human behavior, the APA has done a remarkable job of ignoring prejudice within its own ranks,” said Rep. Tim Walberg, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House committee.

“Its leaders have allowed antisemitism to fester and radical activists to turn a respected scientific institution into a platform for political agendas, while Jewish psychologists are ignored and ostracized,” Walberg said. “The APA has a credibility problem, and its leadership has no one to blame but itself.”

According to the congressional report, APA leadership “caved to pressure to whitewash” the October 7 attacks, “mocked and dismissed Jewish psychologists sounding the alarm on antisemitism” and “appeased radical activists who gutted protections against antisemitism and accused Jews of having white privilege.”

Among the most troubling findings were internal exchanges following the Hamas massacre, when APA officials consulted an affiliated Arab, Middle Eastern, and North African psychological organization that had characterized the atrocities as a “resistance action.”

The incoming president of that organization objected to the APA’s proposed description of the massacre as “terrorist attacks,” claiming the draft contained “lots of problematic and racist language” that could offend members from the Middle East and North Africa. The final APA statement omitted the terrorism reference.

The House investigation also uncovered dismissive reactions to Jewish psychologists who raised concerns about hostility within the organization. When one Jewish member complained about antisemitism, the APA’s then-chief diversity officer reportedly responded internally, “Sigh!”

Another senior official complained about “the Jews who are so angry at us,” accusing them of “feeding hatred” by challenging the association’s conduct.

The report further examined communications involving Lara Sheehi, a George Washington University psychologist who previously faced allegations of discrimination from Jewish students.

After Sheehi criticized individuals unwilling to acknowledge what she called Israel’s “all-out genocide” and accused them of “internalized racism,” then-APA President Thema Bryant praised her “heart, truth, challenge and compassion.”

In another exchange, Sheehi expressed “grave concern about a Jewish psychologist’s claim that Jews are indigenous to Israel” and asserted “that the idea of ‘Jewish folks’ as the ‘real’ indigenous people of Palestine is dangerous, ahistorical propaganda.”

Cynthia de las Fuentes, who was serving as APA president at the time, responded by thanking Sheehi “for bringing this to our attention.”

The investigation also found resistance to recognizing Jewish psychologists as a distinct ethnic minority group within the association. Opponents argued that Jews benefited from “white privilege,” with one describing the proposal as “rooted in its own form of anti-black logics.”

The APA’s ethnic minority affairs committee warned that recognizing a Jewish psychological association without “urgent, unapologetic action on Palestine” could risk “reinforcing inequities and undermining solidarity across marginalized groups.”

The report also highlights the APA’s refusal to provide names of trauma specialists for a White House screening of “Screams Before Silence,” a documentary examining the sexual violence committed by Hamas terrorists during and after October 7.

One official explained the reluctance in an internal message, writing, “I fear providing some names might insert us into the politics of the film and audience.”

Congressional investigators also identified messages circulated through an APA discussion forum that praised Hamas, which the United States has designated a terrorist organization since 1997. One participant claimed Hamas was “protecting civilians” and deserved “kudos.”

The committee raised additional concerns about the growing influence of “decolonial psychology,” an ideological approach that, according to the report, “links mental wellness with Palestinian ‘liberation’ achieved through resistance and mental illness with Zionism.”

The controversy extended to the APA’s efforts to adopt an official resolution condemning antisemitism. In February, the association’s Council of Representatives approved a revised measure by a vote of 127-37, despite objections from its own board and a group of Jewish psychologists who had been advising the organization.

The resolution included language concerning the “weaponization of antisemitism,” a formulation critics argued could be used to dismiss legitimate complaints of anti-Jewish discrimination.

The findings have intensified scrutiny of the APA’s accreditation authority. Last month, a federal advisory panel recommended suspending recognition of the association’s accreditation commission for one year over concerns about antisemitism. The recommendation is not yet a final federal decision.

The APA has previously maintained that it unequivocally condemns antisemitism and has urged federal officials to reject the proposed suspension. In a separate statement this month, its leadership said the organization was strengthening its procedures for addressing discrimination and warned that removing its accreditation recognition could harm psychology students, training programs, and patients.

The association had not publicly responded to Thursday’s congressional report as of the latest available reporting.

The House committee said its findings would help shape potential legislation requiring professional accrediting organizations to uphold standards of fairness, integrity, and equal treatment. It argued that the APA’s handling of complaints from Jewish members raises serious questions about its fitness to establish standards for the psychology profession.

U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee on Thursday strongly rejected suggestions that the Trump administration is attempting to influence the formation of Israel’s next government, describing reports of American interference as “repulsive” while urging Israelis to await the findings of an investigation into allegations of election fraud.

Speaking to Newsmax amid growing controversy over Tuesday’s Knesset elections, Huckabee said Israeli authorities were conducting a serious investigation into suspected irregularities, but emphasized that the allegations should neither be accepted nor dismissed before the facts are established.

“Clearly there is a very, very serious investigation that’s going on,” Huckabee told Newsmax’s “Bianca Across the Nation.”

“These are serious allegations, and it has dominated the conversation all over Israel today, not only on the news but in the streets. And people are genuinely interested and concerned.”

The controversy has intensified following reports of cash discovered at polling locations and accusations from a predominantly Arab political party that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is seeking to discredit the election results. The acting chairman of Israel’s Central Elections Committee, however, has dismissed allegations of voting irregularities as unfounded.

Huckabee said the Shin Bet investigation should determine whether any attempt was made to interfere with the electoral process.

“If there was some type of attempt to do election fraud, it needs to be uncovered. And if there wasn’t, that needs to be affirmed,” Huckabee said.

“So Shin Bet, which is the primary investigative agency in Israel, is all over it. They are conducting a full-scale investigation. And I think we just wait and see what they find.”

The ambassador also discussed the possibility of a national unity government involving Netanyahu and opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot, whose previous declarations against serving under Netanyahu have complicated speculation about such an arrangement.

“The whole key is getting to the magic number of 61,” Huckabee said, referring to the parliamentary seats needed for a governing majority. “And in order to do that, people have to form coalitions.”

Drawing on his own political experience, Huckabee suggested that politicians sometimes reconsider positions they previously described as nonnegotiable when coalition realities leave them with limited options.

“Politics is an interesting game. I’ve been playing it for quite a few years, and I can tell you that people who say, ‘I will never do’ — fill in the blank — and then sometimes people will end up doing it because it’s their only way to be able to be a player in the government.”

Huckabee was particularly critical of reports based on unidentified sources suggesting that Washington was pressing for a broad Israeli coalition that would exclude more ideologically hardline parties.

“It’s so frustrating when these anonymous sources end up getting reported as if they have credibility,” he said. “I’ve long said people who know don’t talk and people who talk don’t know.”

“The fact is that there is no particular pressure that anyone is aware of where the U.S. government is trying to manipulate the election,” Huckabee said.

“President Trump clearly took a position in the election. I think it had an influence, but he has the right to do that.”

Huckabee stressed that his responsibilities as ambassador do not include attempting to determine Israel’s political leadership or dictate which parties should participate in its government.

“I find it repulsive that someone is reporting that the American government is trying to somehow arrange what happens,” he said.

“The only person who has the ability to have some influence in maybe encouraging a unity government would be President Trump, nobody else.”

The ambassador’s comments came as Israeli election officials sought to distinguish between allegations of possible foreign involvement and claims that the election results themselves had been compromised. The Shin Bet said its investigation was limited in scope, while the Central Elections Committee reported finding no evidence of widespread or systematic fraud.

{Matzav.com}

United Torah Judaism is reportedly considering a dramatic political realignment that would allow Gadi Eisenkot to establish a minority government without the chareidi party formally joining his coalition, according to a Thursday report by Channel 12. However, UTJ chairman MK Yaakov Asher categorically denied that any discussions or negotiations concerning such an arrangement have taken place.

The reported proposal would have UTJ remain in the opposition while refraining from voting against an Eisenkot-led government or blocking its legislation. Such an arrangement could enable Eisenkot to govern without securing the conventional 61-seat Knesset majority, provided enough opposition members abstain during crucial votes.

According to the reported parliamentary calculations, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s bloc would command 46 seats, compared with 48 for Eisenkot’s bloc. Eisenkot could potentially also rely on the eight MKs from Ra’am, although any such arrangement would introduce additional political complications.

The report attributed the emerging discussion to frustration among some UTJ figures over the party’s longstanding alliance with Netanyahu, particularly following an election that left his bloc without a clear path to a majority.

“We won’t get anything from Netanyahu. Our alliance with him has been exhausted, certainly in a case where there aren’t 61 votes,” a source from within the party said.

The source argued that UTJ should consider alternative political arrangements that would restore its influence over government policy, rather than remain tied to Netanyahu if he cannot assemble a viable coalition.

“Our interest is to once again be a decisive power in the Knesset,” the source explained.

One concern reportedly raised within the party is that the major non-chareidi factions could eventually form a broad unity government, leaving UTJ with little influence over legislation and government decisions affecting the Torah community.

“If a unity government is formed, there’s a chance we’ll go into the wilderness, the desert of the opposition. Not for this were we elected,” the source added.

Asher, however, issued an unequivocal denial, insisting that no negotiations, preliminary approaches or other contacts had occurred regarding support for an Eisenkot government.

“There have been no feelers, no talks, and no contacts,” Asher said.

He stressed that UTJ’s political decisions would be determined exclusively by the instructions of the Gedolei HaTorah, and that no initiative would move forward without their approval.

“Until we consult the leading Torah sages and receive their instructions, no contacts will take place, none have taken place, and no initiative will be advanced,” he clarified.

The possibility of UTJ cooperating with Eisenkot had already surfaced before the elections. A Channel 12 report in September suggested that some party representatives might abstain during a vote to establish an Eisenkot government, reflecting dissatisfaction with Netanyahu’s failure to secure legislation protecting the status of yeshiva bochurim.

The proposed arrangement faces a substantial obstacle in Eisenkot’s own positions. The Yashar party chairman has advocated broader military service requirements, while UTJ has insisted that any government seeking its support must first address the draft crisis and protect the ability of yeshiva students to continue learning.

Asher previously declared that UTJ would neither join nor support a government that failed to enact acceptable legislation regulating the status of yeshiva students. That condition remains central to the party’s political calculations.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s associates reportedly contacted UTJ representatives Wednesday to convey the prime minister’s intention to preserve his existing political alliances following the election. Asher’s office confirmed receiving that message while stating that no approaches had been received from other party leaders.

Channel 12’s report also indicated that some UTJ figures fear a broad unity coalition could leave the chareidi parties outside the government entirely, depriving them of influence over yeshiva funding, religious affairs and legislation affecting the Torah community.

For now, the proposal remains an idea attributed to unnamed party officials rather than an approved UTJ position, with Asher insisting that the party will not enter discussions until the Gedolei HaTorah have determined its course.

{Matzav.com}