US President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday in a Truth Social post that he was declaring the Strait of Hormuz a new US territory.

Later on Tuesday, Trump said that there are “no talks or conversations going on, or scheduled, with the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

“The Naval Blockade remains in full force and effect. The Hormuz Strait is open and operating. All water mines have been removed or detonated,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.

The announcement came after reporters asked Trump in the Oval Office on Monday whether he intended to make such a declaration. “I think it’s an excellent idea. We control it through the blockade, and I like the idea of declaring it our territory,” he replied.

Trump also pointed to what he described as the effectiveness of the US military’s naval blockade. “We’re taking out millions of barrels of oil a week. If you look at the numbers we’re getting, the strait is open, oil prices are going down, and they’ll continue to go down, unless we decide to do something much more drastic than what we’re doing now.”

Addressing the possibility of reaching an agreement with Iran, Trump said that “Tehran wants to make a deal, but they’re not going to make the kind of deal that I think is necessary.”

Trump: Iran cannot have nuclear weapon

He added, “They cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. And right now, after what we did previously with the B-2 bombers, it will take them a long time to build one.”

When asked whether he was working to extend the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), Trump declined to answer and shook his head no.

Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesperson Dr. Majed al Ansari said on Tuesday that mediators were waiting for Oman and Iran to reach a bilateral agreement on Hormuz before returning to broader talks between the US and Iran.

An agreement on the Strait of Hormuz would make resuming the talks “much easier,” he added.

This post was originally published on here. 

Researchers at Stanford University used artificial intelligence to create 16 functional viruses not found in nature earlier this month.

Some may feel as though they are at the start of a dystopian film, wondering why scientists would meddle with something as dangerous as new deadly viruses. However, these scientists have good reason, and while the viruses may be deadly to their intended targets, they have the potential to be life-saving for humans around the world.

The viruses created in the Stanford Lab are bacteriophages, and as the name suggests, these are viruses that exclusively target bacteria. As antibiotic resistance rises worldwide, chemical engineer Brian Hie and Samuel King began studying a potential solution involving the bacteriophage ΦX174 (pronounced “FYE-ex-1-7-4”), which targets E. Coli bacteria.

Antibiotic-resistant E. Coli found to pose threat to Israeli society

Researchers in Israel raised the alarm about antibiotic-resistant E. Coli bacteria in the past. A study published by the Health Ministry and Tel Aviv University in 2021 found that infections caused by the bacteria placed an “extremely high” burden on the public health system.

Researchers called for immediate action, including the development of prevention strategies and long-term control of antibiotic resistance.

Hie, using EVO 2, a generative AI model he created that generates new DNA sequences to solve biological challenges, may have the start of a solution.  

Using ΦX174 as a template, the AI designed thousands of new genomes. The research team chemically synthesized and tested nearly 300 in the lab and came up with 16 that were viable and effective. 

They were different from any natural phages, completely new viruses. 

New phages could lead to new effective antibiotic medications

Hie explained that multiple phages could be used to create a more effective antibiotic medication. 

“If the bacteria gain resistance to a single phage, it’s game over for the medication,” Hie said to the Stanford Report. “But if you have multiple genetically distinct phages in a mixture, it would be harder for the bacteria to develop resistance to the entire cocktail.”

The researchers found that a mixture of the designed phages was able to overcome the ΦX174-resistant E. coli strains when a mix of naturally sourced ΦX174-like phages could not.  

While the innovations have great potential, many have also expressed concern over the potential dangers of using artificial intelligence to create viruses. 

EVO 2 is open source, meaning anyone can download the AI and design new genomes themselves. 

The Stanford researchers addressed biosafety and biosecurity considerations directly in their paper, encouraging any future researchers to consult with safety and security professionals and writing that all experiments were performed at the biosafety level appropriate for research with bacteriophages. 

Additionally, safeguards were put in place by limiting the data used to train the AI. With the data given to it, EVO 2 was unable to generate any virus genomes capable of targeting animals (including humans), plants, or fungi.

Hie acknowledged that the tool could potentially be used for dangerous purposes but argued that the open availability is necessary to expedite research and the vast potential benefits to health and humanity.  

Hie also claimed these viruses were safer than many naturally occurring viruses, as designed viruses were subject to more oversight in production.  

Others have taken a more cautious approach. 

Scientists call for tighter oversight, new legal framework

In a paper written in response to King and Hie, scientists from John Hopkins University’s Center, Thomas Inglesby and Moritz Hanke for Health Security warned that while the Stanford researchers limited the AI’s training data it would not be difficult for a different user to discover a way around the limitations, opening the possibilities for viruses designed to infect humans, animals, or plants in ways we cannot yet counter. 

Inglesby and Hanke called for national and global oversight on future research, writing that the mechanisms in place are not enough. 

Countries such as the US and Israel have laws that govern the research of dangerous biological agents, including bacteria and viruses.  

In Israel, researchers must be granted approval by the official Council for Research into Biological Disease Agents before working with certain dangerous pathogens.

However, these laws are all designed with known pathogens in mind and do not cover new artificially designed viruses. 

International policies, such as the World Health Organization’s global guidelines, also do not cover risks from AI-generated pathogens. 

Additionally, while King, Hie, and the other researchers called for the providers of synthetic nucleic acids, which are used to create the newly designed viruses, to screen customers’ orders and be wary of potential bad actors, Inglesby and Hanke called for the practice to be mandated by law.  

“The question is no longer whether generative viral genome design will exist. It is whether society can build oversight that allows its benefits to unfold while preventing it from enabling serious harm,” they wrote.  

This post was originally published on here. 

Saudi Arabia has placed financial transfers to the United Arab Emirates under extra layers of regulatory oversight reserved for countries considered high-risk for illicit money flows, according to three people with direct knowledge of the matter, the latest sign of a widening rift between the wealthy Gulf monarchies.

The measures, which were not announced publicly, could help explain why a number of companies say they have had difficulties transferring funds from accounts in Saudi Arabia to the UAE in recent months, an issue first reported by Bloomberg and the Financial Times in July. The enhanced oversight measures have not previously been reported.

Six businesspeople told Reuters their companies have had transfers in various currencies delayed or returned by Saudi banks with no official explanation.

Saudi Arabia’s central bank requires financial institutions to apply more checks when dealing with customers or jurisdictions that pose greater risks for money laundering, terrorism financing, and other crimes. Earlier this year, it notified key banks in the country to apply such measures when handling settlements with the UAE, said the three people with direct knowledge of the matter, who, like others, spoke on condition of anonymity.

A fourth person, a Western executive with operations in Saudi Arabia, said they received the same explanation when they asked their bank about transaction delays.

Responding to questions from Reuters, the Saudi central bank said: “There are no direct restrictions on specific countries.”

It said Saudi Arabia has a robust regulatory framework to combat money laundering and terrorism financing in line with standards set by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a global watchdog based in Paris.

“All banks in the Kingdom apply necessary controls and preventive measures to mitigate risks based on their own internal assessments and institutional risk appetite, while also assessing various risk factors, including country and geographic risk,” it said.

A UAE official said its economy ministry has not received any reports from private-sector companies regarding difficulties or unusual delays in completing bank transfers between the two nations.

“The UAE and Saudi Arabia maintain deep and longstanding economic and commercial ties, supported by significant trade and investment flows,” the official said. “We remain in regular engagement with the private sector and relevant stakeholders, and would review any specific concerns brought to our attention through the appropriate channels.”

The additional scrutiny puts the UAE – a hub for real estate investment and the trade of precious metals and stones – among more than a half dozen countries in the region deemed high risk in Saudi Arabia for financial crimes, two of the sources said. They include Lebanon, South Sudan, and Iraq, which are on the FATF’s “grey list” of jurisdictions that need additional monitoring.

The FATF delisted the UAE in 2024 after it made improvements to its anti-money laundering regime, a decision some anti-corruption groups argue was premature. The United States has imposed sanctions on a number of UAE-based individuals and entities accused of raising or laundering funds for groups such as Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Somalia’s al Shabaab militants.

A Saudi insider said the enhanced oversight was intended as a “subtle message” to Emirati leaders about the importance of maintaining good relations following a period of escalating tensions between the two Gulf heavyweights – an interpretation shared by four regional financial-sector sources who were not briefed on the reasons for the measures.

Authorities in Saudi Arabia and the UAE did not answer questions about what may have prompted the move.

The two are major trading partners, but their ​interests have diverged over the years on everything from oil quotas and geopolitical influence to ​the race for foreign ⁠talent and capital.

UAE, Saudi Arabia clash over Yemen war

Simmering disagreements came into the open late last year over ​their support for opposing sides in the war in Yemen. Saudi Arabia accused the UAE of threatening its security by backing secessionist forces who made a push toward its borders.

There were more disagreements over how to respond to Iran’s war with the United States and Israel, even as Riyadh and Abu Dhabi sought to present a united front against Tehran’s attacks on Gulf nations.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE are so deeply enmeshed in trade, investment and logistics that analysts consider a full-blown economic rupture unlikely, saying it would serve neither country’s interests. The kingdom is the UAE’s largest trading partner in the Arab world, while the UAE was Riyadh’s fifth-largest export destination overall and its fourth-largest source of imports in 2024, according to data from the online platform the Observatory of Economic Complexity.

For all their differences, the Iran war has “solidified the rationale for cooperation” to secure vital interests, including reopening the Strait of Hormuz, said Justin Alexander, director of Khalij Economics, a Gulf-focused consultancy.

Top media officials from both nations posted synchronized statements on social media last month underlining the brotherly ties between the two.

Still, economic competition has been brewing for years as both attempt to reduce their reliance on oil-and-gas revenues and establish themselves as world-class financial and business centers.

Saudi Arabia pushing companies to move regional bases to Riyadh

While Dubai remains the Gulf’s main business hub, Saudi Arabia has pushed multinational companies to relocate their regional headquarters to Riyadh, making it a condition to secure big government contracts.

The businesspeople who spoke to Reuters said their difficulties with cross-border transfers began in the weeks after the UAE announced on April 28 that it was leaving OPEC, the group of oil-producing states effectively led by Saudi Arabia.

The head of a Dubai-based consultancy said some Saudi clients were struggling to make payments to the firm and had advised him to set up operations elsewhere.

Two other UAE-based companies received similar requests from clients, who said Saudi authorities asked them not to do business with firms in the UAE, according to an investor with stakes in both firms. The companies have been waiting weeks for payments from Saudi Arabia, in some cases for amounts below 1 million dirham ($272,257), which would previously have been processed in a few days, the investor said.

Authorities in Saudi Arabia and the UAE did not respond to questions about these accounts.

Three bankers said the enhanced oversight means transfers to the UAE pass through more hands and receive closer scrutiny from compliance departments. Some transfers take weeks to go through; others never make it, they said.

Three businesspeople said their firms now route payments via third countries to get around the issue.

This post was originally published on here. 

Hamas must honor its commitments to disarm or face an IDF operation to “finish the job,” US special envoy Jared Kushner told FOX News’s Trey Yingst on Monday.

Kushner’s comments came after meetings with Hamas and the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) in Cairo on Sunday, and respective meetings with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Isaac Herzog in Jerusalem on Monday.

“If they [Hamas] don’t follow through now on their commitment, everyone will see that they’re not genuine about peace, and then Israel will have a lot more support from the US and others to go and finish the job in the appropriate way,” Kushner stated.

The terror group affirmed its “commitment” to Trump’s 20-point peace plan, and the “15-point roadmap that we’ve been working on with them for the last four months, where they commit to giving up their weapons,” Kushner said.

“Time will tell whether that’s going to be implemented,” Kushner added.

Kushner: Hamas said right things during meeting, but difficult to trust a terror organization that committed atrocities

Describing the behavior and comments of the Hamas delegation in Cairo, Kushner said that “they said all the right things, but obviously, it’s very, very hard to trust, you know, a terrorist organization that committed these terrible atrocities.”

“But we had a very cordial meeting, and they said all the right things, and so we’re giving them a chance to perform… it’s going to be based on actions and steps, and I hope it will be true,” Kushner told Yingst.

“We could be seeing progress, you know, in as much as in as little as 30 days,” Kushner told Yingst regarding the planned pace of demilitarization operations.

“Hopefully, on starting to take some of the weapons out, and hopefully, you know, filling in some of the tunnels as well in the next 60 to 90 days as well,” he added.

“For Israel, we think this is a win-win situation because if Hamas actually gives over the weapons and the tunnels willingly over the next 60 to 90 days, that obviously would be the elimination of a huge security threat for Israel, almost an unthinkable achievement,” he stated.

Trump admin. will not allow Gaza to be rebuilt until Hamas demilitarizes, Kushner says

The Trump administration will “not allow Gaza to be rebuilt until demilitarization occurs,” Kushner stated.

“We’re also not going to restrict Israel’s right to defend itself if there are any imminent threats,” he added, noting that his delegation “had to clarify what that means” during the four-hour meeting with Netanyahu.

“Israel has a strong desire to live in peace,” Kushner told Yingst.

“They’ve been through three years of war. It’s been very, very hard for the country, very hard for the people. I think there’s a lot of emotion in Israel and in the region,” he continued.

“As I travel around the region, I do think people are tired of war. I think they’re ready for something new… But it’s just sometimes hard. You know, who’s going to take the first step, and how do you build trust when there’s so little trust that’s now been eroded?” he added.

This post was originally published on here. 

Israeli low-cost airline Israir Airlines received approval to sell tickets for flights to the US, the airline announced on Tuesday.

The US Department of Transportation gave the initial approval to sell tickets, the airline stated, while noting that the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is continuing the review before granting final approval for Israir to operate flights to the US.

Israir “is in continuous contact with the FAA and is working in full cooperation with the relevant authorities, with the expectation that the approval proces will be completed as soon as possible,” the airline said.

“As soon as the FAA authorizes Israir to fly to New York… Israir will immediately start operating the flights, and, as a result, start selling tickets,” the airline stated.

Israir to fly to New York from October, airline forecasts

The airline is planning to operate flights on the New York route from October 19 onwards, it added.

As of August 18, the flights are not available on the website. Tickets are expected to go on sale from “next week,” the airline said.

Israir’s other destinations include only two locations outside Europe and the Caucasus, namely, Zanzibar, Tanzania, and Marrakesh, Morocco.

This post was originally published on here. 

Iran pushed to continue the war with the United States in order to force a ceasefire on its own terms, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said during a conference with Iranian educators on Tuesday.

“We were the ones who refused the ceasefire and continued the war until we reached a point where they [the US] agreed to a ceasefire and negotiations on Iran’s terms,” Araghchi said. “We fought with strength and negotiated with strength, and we won the war, and we won the diplomacy.”

According to Araghchi, “The Iranian people stood against what was supposedly the largest military in the world, which was supported and assisted by most Western countries and by several other countries in the region and beyond.”

Araghchi concluded by saying that “those who tried to impose unconditional surrender on Iran begged for negotiations shortly after the war began.”

Trump says Iran should raise white flag, threatens Oman over Hormuz

On Monday, US President Donald Trump told FOX News that Iran should raise “the white flag of surrender,” and that he has “no time schedule” and is in “no hurry” to make a deal. The Iranians are “good poker players, but they’re dying,” said Trump.

He also warned that “if Oman gets in the way [of US control in the Strait of Hormuz], we’ll bomb the s*** out of them.”

Regarding US munitions used against Iran, Trump said that what has been used so far against Iran “is peanuts.”

Miriam Sela-Eitam contributed to this report.

This post was originally published on here. 

The 60-day negotiating window meant to move the United States and Iran toward a more durable settlement expired August 17 without a comprehensive agreement, leaving behind a military balance increasingly different from the one that existed when the pause began.

Iran has used periods of reduced fighting to repair launchers, restore access to damaged military infrastructure, and accelerate missile and drone production. The United States is confronting depleted stocks of interceptors and precision weapons used during the conflict, while Gulf countries struck by Iranian missiles and drones are seeking additional air-defense systems and ammunition. Israel has accelerated production of its own interceptors and aerial munitions.

What began as an attempt to create diplomatic space has also functioned as a period of military reconstitution.

For Tehran, that effort has been explicit. Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Aerospace Force Commander Majid Mousavi said in April that Iran was updating and replenishing missile and drone launchers faster than before the war, although Reuters was unable to independently verify accompanying footage from an underground missile facility.

On May 21, Reuters, citing CNN and two sources familiar with US intelligence assessments, reported that Iran had restarted some drone production during the six-week ceasefire that began in April. The news agency reported July 29 that Iran was preparing to receive an initial shipment from China of as many as 400 shoulder-fired air-defense missile launchers as Tehran rebuilt its defenses.

Iran restoring access to underground missile facilities quicker than expected

The Wall Street Journal reported July 23 that satellite imagery showed Iran restoring roads and access to underground missile facilities more quickly than some Israeli officials had anticipated. The imagery also indicated reconstruction at a missile-component plant near Tehran, although more sophisticated parts of Iran’s weapons industry appeared harder to restore.

Tehran has clearly recovered part of its ability to fight, but publicly available information does not establish that Iran has returned to its full prewar missile-production or operational capacity.

That uncertainty is central to Israeli calculations.

Danny Citrinowicz, a senior researcher in the Iran and the Shi’ite Axis Program at the Institute for National Security Studies and a former head of the Iran branch in the Research and Analysis Division of Israel Defense Intelligence, told The Media Line that focusing solely on the number of destroyed production sites risks obscuring the arsenal Iran may still retain.

“Nobody knows exactly how many weapons they have, but even during the friction with the US, they attacked Jordan numerous times with long ballistic missiles, so obviously they still have the capacity to launch missiles,” Citrinowicz said. “Adding to that, there are numerous reports in Israel that the Iranians were able to rebuild their manufacturing capacity – not 100%, but they have the ability to manufacture.”

Citrinowicz said that despite what he described as operational gains during the 39-day war, Iran retained sufficient missiles and launchers to sustain hostilities for weeks or months.

His assessment points to a structural problem exposed by the conflict. Strikes can destroy fixed production facilities, launchers, and command infrastructure. They have greater difficulty eliminating technical expertise, dispersed supply networks, underground storage, and the political decision to rebuild.

Iran has spent decades developing a largely indigenous ballistic-missile industry because missiles allow Tehran to threaten targets far beyond its borders despite the limitations of its conventional air force. The war damaged that architecture but did not remove the strategic reason Iran relies on it.

John Keith King, a strategic adviser and founder of Q Advisory, cautioned against interpreting every sign of resumed production as evidence that Iran had already restored its previous military strength.

Public estimates have differed sharply. An Israeli Air Force official reportedly estimated in early April that Iran retained slightly more than 1,000 missiles capable of reaching Israel, while US intelligence assessments cited in American reporting placed the surviving share at roughly 70% of its prewar stockpile. Later Israeli reporting said about two-thirds of Iran’s launchers remained operational. Satellite analysis also indicated that Iran had reopened 50 of 69 entrances at 18 underground missile facilities.

“The number of operational launchers, missile accuracy, command-and-control resilience, availability of solid-fuel components, and the ability to conduct sustained coordinated barrages are at least as important as the total number of missiles,” King told The Media Line. “Some of the current estimates originate with Israeli security sources and require continued independent verification.”

King did not characterize the Israeli estimates as false, but said assessments based on security sources should not be treated as independently confirmed.

That distinction could prove critical if Israel considers another preventive military campaign.

The relevant calculation is no longer simply how many missiles Iran possesses. It is whether Tehran has enough functioning launchers, command networks, and precision systems to sustain large salvos; whether Israel can identify and destroy those systems quickly enough; and whether Israeli and American missile defenses can absorb another prolonged exchange.

US, Gulf countries replenishing arms during Iran ceasefire

Iran is not the only actor rebuilding.

The war placed unusually heavy pressure on air-defense inventories across the region. The International Institute for Strategic Studies reported May 12 that Iranian missile and drone attacks had depleted Gulf countries’ interceptor magazines and exposed capability gaps, prompting Saudi Arabia and other states to seek additional interceptors, radars, counter-drone equipment and surface-to-air systems.

The United States faces its own replenishment problem. On August 3, Washington announced framework agreements worth more than $3 billion to expand production of Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptor components. The Pentagon said the agreements could eventually triple Patriot production capacity and quadruple THAAD production after the conflicts involving Iran and Ukraine strained US inventories.

The US military awarded RTX a $22.9 billion contract on August 17 aimed at dramatically increasing Tomahawk production as Washington moves to replenish long-range weapons used in recent conflicts.

It would be difficult to describe the current period simply as a pause in which Iran alone is rearming. It has become a broader regional replenishment race.

There is no public evidence that Washington entered the ceasefire specifically to restore its weapons inventories. Still, the United States and its partners have used the same period to address shortages and strengthen defenses, particularly around the Gulf, where American bases and allied infrastructure remain within range of Iranian missiles.

Iran is trying to restore the offensive capability needed to make another attack costly. Washington and its Gulf partners are rebuilding defensive stocks intended to absorb that capability. Israel must prepare both to defend itself against another Iranian barrage and to decide whether renewed Iranian production eventually justifies another strike.

King described the resulting environment as something less stable than a conventional ceasefire.

“I would describe the present situation not as peace, but as an armed pause within an unresolved conflict,” he said. “The ceasefire has not produced agreement over Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, control of the Strait of Hormuz, sanctions, or the future regional security structure. Both sides are therefore using the pause to rebuild military capacity and strengthen their negotiating positions.”

According to King, the situation creates a dangerous cycle.

“Iran’s rearmament may encourage another preventive strike, while continued American or Israeli threats convince Tehran that accelerating missile production is essential for survival,” he said.

Strait of Hormuz shipping obstacles showcase continued conflict

The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the clearest examples of how little of the underlying conflict has been resolved.

As the negotiating period expired, Iran said it was close to finalizing an understanding with Oman on routes for commercial vessels through the strait. Washington and Tehran remain divided over the larger political conditions surrounding the waterway, including the US blockade of Iranian ports and Tehran’s demand for a role in controlling passage through Hormuz. Separate efforts to restore the broader interim US-Iran arrangement produced no substantive progress before the deadline.

Military rebuilding on all sides could reduce the margin for error while diplomacy remains unable to address the conflict’s underlying causes.

A missile deployment interpreted as preparation for an attack, a new shipping incident, or an Israeli decision that Iranian production has crossed an unacceptable threshold could quickly transform the standoff.

Israel’s role in that scenario is particularly complicated.

The Israeli Defense Ministry has moved to increase production of Arrow interceptors, part of Israel’s ballistic-missile defense architecture developed jointly with the United States. It has also accelerated aerial-munitions production and moved to replenish weapons used in operations against Iran and on other fronts.

Yet military readiness does not automatically translate into freedom of action.

Citrinowicz argued that another major Israeli operation against Iran would remain heavily dependent on Washington, particularly if the United States sought to prevent a new round of direct fighting.

He said Israel’s ability to conduct such an operation would be sharply constrained as long as the US administration opposed renewed escalation. He argued that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be especially reluctant to act against US President Donald Trump’s regional policy because Netanyahu also values the US president’s political support ahead of Israel’s election.

Citrinowicz said Israel would be unlikely to expand the war as long as the United States opposed further escalation, even if Netanyahu favored doing so, because acting against US policy in the region would be difficult.

He stressed that the dependence was structural rather than limited to one administration or military operation.

“There is no replacement in Israel for the US support,” Citrinowicz said. “We need the US support offensively and defensively… At the end of the day, we are highly dependent on the US.”

He said Israel must adjust when Washington’s regional priorities diverge from those of the Israeli government. In the present case, he said, US opposition to renewed fighting would leave Israel with few realistic alternatives because it depends on American diplomatic backing, offensive support and missile defense.

That dependency places Israel in a difficult position if Iranian missile rebuilding continues faster than expected while Washington remains reluctant to return to a large-scale offensive.

Israel could decide that allowing Tehran additional time would make a future strike more costly. Striking sooner could trigger Iranian retaliation against Israel, US forces, and Gulf infrastructure, followed by another round of American involvement.

King said the military question could not be separated from the diplomatic one.

“The only sustainable alternative is an enforceable agreement covering more than the nuclear issue,” he said. “It would require verifiable limitations on missile production and deployment, reliable inspection mechanisms, protected navigation through Hormuz, military deconfliction channels, and phased economic incentives tied to compliance.”

“Without such arrangements,” King said, “the region risks entering a recurring pattern in which Iran rebuilds, the United States or Israel strikes again, and every round becomes more destructive than the last.”

This post was originally published on here. 

US President Donald Trump’s envoy Jared Kushner on Monday said conversations between the US and different areas of the Iranian government were probably more robust than ever, but the two sides had not yet reached an understanding.

Kushner, who is visiting the Middle East, made the comments in an interview with Fox News.

Kushner said that “Trump doesn’t want to rush into a deal, he’ll make the right deal when it’s ready.”

He added that the president would be “very patient with Iran.”

Kushner said that Trump was placing an emphasis on economic pressure over military actions, focusing on the blockade of Iran which had left the Iranian economy “way worse off now.”

Kushner also said that Trump was acting to ensure that Iran could not have a nuclear weapon, adding that “if Iran is willing to finish the deal that they’ve been discussing with us to give up their ability to create a nuclear weapon then obviously he is willing to make a deal.”

Hezbollah stands in the way of peace, must be disarmed, US State Dept. spokesman declares

Hezbollah is solely responsible for Israel’s presence in Lebanon, a US State Department spokesperson told Sky News Arabia early on Tuesday morning.

The Iran-backed group is the biggest threat to Lebanon’s safety and stability, the official also told the network, adding that Hezbollah acts as the main obstacle to Lebanon’s economic recovery and the only blemish on its international reputation.

The group must be disarmed and dismantled, the spokesperson told the channel, maintaining that disarming the group is an integral part of the pilot program for Israeli withdrawal from certain areas in southern Lebanon.

This program, which seeks a staggered Israeli withdrawal from areas to be taken over by Lebanese government forces, remains the only practical path towards peace and security, the spokesperson further said.

The program is set to expand if the first stages are successfully completed, they added.

This post was originally published on here. 

The US is preparing to tell dozens of countries they must pick sides in the artificial intelligence race with China, warning they will be excluded from a US-led coalition if they also sign up for Beijing’s competing framework, according to a US official and an internal draft reviewed by Reuters.

Washington last year launched the Pax Silica initiative aimed at securing supply chains for AI models, semiconductors and critical minerals, amid a fierce technology rivalry with Beijing.

About two dozen countries have joined, including Kazakhstan, a key potential source of critical minerals that has also joined China’s coalition, as well as close US allies such as Japan, Australia, and South Korea.

The draft letter, prepared by the State Department, is addressed to the 35 signatories of a US “AI Opportunity Statement” signed in June, which includes members of the non-binding Pax Silica framework and other countries that have expressed a desire to align cooperation on AI with Washington.

By pressing countries to choose sides, the US hopes to starve China of resources in a race to make the most sophisticated AI, which could be used for military or economic dominance.

Jinping launches World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization

In July, Chinese President ​Xi Jinping launched a rival “World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization,” promoting his country’s open-weight technology as a challenge to US influence over ‌the fast-moving sector.

Kazakhstan is the only country so far known to have joined both initiatives, setting off alarm bells in Washington.

“To be part of everything is to be part of nothing. Signature of the Pax Silica Declaration is not merely a membership subscription, but a commitment,” the letter says, urging countries to “choose deliberately” on AI.

“It cannot be held alongside membership in duplicative initiatives whose expectations conflict with our own,” the letter said, without specifically mentioning China.

Reuters could not determine when the US intends to send the letter or whether it might be amended before sending. The draft was undated.

The State Department told Reuters it would not comment on “purportedly leaked internal documents.”

China’s embassy in Washington said the country opposes politicizing trade and technology issues. “Such actions will only stifle global AI advances and serve no one’s interests,” an embassy spokesperson said.

The Kazakh embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment.

The Pax Silica agreement aims to push US allies and partners toward joint projects and export controls, and ultimately reduce reliance on adversaries for critical minerals, AI models, and the semiconductor chips that power them.

The race between the US and China for technological leadership has reached a pivotal moment, as Chinese open-weight AI models have made rapid gains against proprietary systems from US companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic.

The exponential growth of the technology’s capabilities, including the ability to hack autonomously, has forced a global reckoning over its power.

Beijing is weighing restrictions on overseas access to some ​of China’s leading AI models, highlighting the growing tension with its stringent national security agenda.

The US touted Kazakhstan in June as the first country in Central Asia to join Pax Silica, bringing significant reserves of critical minerals that fuel advanced technologies.

China wielding critical mineral supply against Trump tariffs

China has used its current near-monopolies over critical minerals as a retaliatory weapon in a tariff war launched last year by US President Donald Trump, who has ramped up US efforts to source the minerals domestically and from allies.

Members of Pax Silica have access to shared investment opportunities in AI-related projects while those who sign the AI Opportunity Statement have symbolically agreed on a “common purpose” and “shared vision” with the US, according to the statement posted on the State Department’s website.

US officials drafted the letter to make clear that “you can’t have it both ways,” the US official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity given ongoing internal discussions on the issue.

“It’s difficult to see how a country can credibly position themselves as trusted partners in one technology ecosystem while simultaneously signing up for an initiative designed by China to advance a competing vision for AI,” the official said.

This post was originally published on here. 

US President Donald Trump’s approval rating fell to the lowest level of his presidency with an overwhelming majority of Americans concerned the US war with Iran will last a long time, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that concluded on Monday.

Just 33% of respondents in the four-day survey said they approved of Trump’s performance in the White House, while 64% disapproved. Trump’s approval rating, down from 35% in a poll that closed earlier this month and lower than at any point in his current term, has now tied the lowest level of his prior term reached in December 2017.

After returning to the White House last year with just under half the country approving of his presidency, Trump’s popularity this year took a hit after he ordered strikes on Iran alongside US ally Israel.

The ensuing conflict paralyzed a fifth of the global oil trade, triggering a surge in the price of gasoline which is weighing on US households – and on Trump’s Republican allies defending congressional majorities in November midterm elections.

Trump pledged no long-lasting wars in his presidential campaign

Trump, who campaigned on promises to keep inflation in check and avoid long-lasting wars, initially pledged the conflict with Iran would take a few weeks, and argued the war was the only way to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon that could threaten the world.

But Iran has proved resilient and has kept the oil trade through the Strait of Hormuz largely bottled up even as the conflict has cooled.

Some 80% of Americans – including 87% of Democrats and 71% of Republicans – think US involvement in Iran “will go on for an extended period of time,” the Reuters/Ipsos poll found. Just 16% said the conflict would likely end in a few weeks.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll, which was conducted online, gathered responses from 1,166 US adults nationwide and had a margin of error of 3 percentage points in either direction.

This post was originally published on here. 

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan urged US President Donald Trump in a call to continue talks with Iran to de-escalate tensions between the two countries, and offered Ankara’s support in peace efforts, the Turkish presidency said in a statement on Tuesday.

The two discussed the wars in Iran and Gaza, the defense pact signed between Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and bilateral ties.

Cumhurbaşkanımız Sayın Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri Başkanı Donald Trump ile bir telefon görüşmesi gerçekleştirdi.

Liderler görüşmede, Türkiye-ABD ikili ilişkileri ile bölgesel ve küresel gelişmeleri ele aldı.

Cumhurbaşkanı Erdoğan, İran ile ABD arasındaki…

— T.C. İletişim Başkanlığı (@iletisim) August 17, 2026

During the call Erdogan reportedly told Trump to continue talks with Iran, saying that “it is of great importance to make the utmost use of diplomacy in the tensions between Iran and the United States, that we hope the talks will continue,” and adding that Turkey will support peace efforts.

Additionally, Turkey’s foreign minister spoke with his Iranian counterpart in a call on Tuesday, with the pair discussing efforts to open the Strait of Hormuz and to continue the US-Iran ceasefire.

Erdogan condemned continued IDF operations in Gaza

Speaking about the war in Gaza, Erdogan said that Israel was continuing to attack Palestinians when the second phase of Trump’s peace plan was supposed to have taken effect.

“At a time when we aim to move to the second stage in the Gaza peace process, there has been an increase in actions by the Israeli administration targeting Palestinians, and that Turkey will continue to support steps toward lasting peace in the region and the reconstruction of Gaza,” he said.

Erdogan also spoke with Trump about the recent Joint Defense Agreement that was signed by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan earlier this month. This “demonstrated a strong stance for ensuring regional stability and security,” he said.

On Sunday, Trump took to Truth Social to commend the three countries on the signing of the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement, adding that it “shows how the Middle East is coming together, and how Countries will finally be able to defend themselves in a more meaningful way.”

Reuters contributed to this report.

This post was originally published on here. 

As an exhausting primary season begins to wind down, voters in Florida, the last remaining big state yet to hold its primaries, head to the polls Tuesday with several races on the Jewish community’s radar.

The conservative state is home to large numbers of Jews, including a growing number of Jewish emigres from more liberal enclaves, and features several marquee matchups on both sides of the aisle.

The state has faced some political turmoil, including last-minute Republican-led redistricting that could hurt the chances of some pro-Israel Jewish Democrats at a moment when such figures are an endangered species in the US House.

On the GOP side, the right’s civil war between hardline pro-Israel figures and a growing crop of white nationalist-adjacent Israel skeptics will be laid bare in multiple races.

Here are some of the storylines for Jews to watch for on Florida’s ballot:

The ‘groyper’ governor’s race

No other low-polling candidate this cycle has grabbed as much attention as James Fishback, the former investment banker running for governor in Florida. 

Despite consistently trailing his rival, US Rep. Byron Donalds, in the GOP primary, Fishback has raised concern among both Jewish conservatives and party elites. He has embraced online far-right figures including Nick Fuentes, the white nationalist and antisemitic influencer, and uses memes and coded phrases such as “goyslop” to court Fuentes’s “groyper” movement of young men who spread irony-laced antisemitic talking points online.

Asked earlier in the campaign about “goyslop,” a term that refers to low-quality food supposedly promoted by Jewish elites, Fishback told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency he employed it in a speech “because it’s funny. Get a life.”

Much of Fishback’s campaign has focused on the youth vote, fueling concerns that antisemitism could be a building block of the next generation of the right. His college campus visits have boasted high turnout, and young Republican groups that have hosted him have themselves been criticized for antisemitic behavior. 

Few analysts expect Fishback to win the primary. His campaign has been mired by scandal and odd behavior, and Donalds, the Trump-endorsed frontrunner, leads most polls by comfortable margins. But Fishback is polling in the double digits in some recent analyses of likely voters from polling outlets including Cygnal, which also has him outpacing two other establishment candidates, and primary polling in Michigan and Wisconsin that turned out to be inaccurate further complicates the prognosis. 

Even a reasonably strong performance from Fishback, particularly among the youth vote, would be met with alarm in some Jewish conservative corners.

A Jew who insults Muslims takes on a rival who insults Jews

Elsewhere in Florida’s Republican field, tensions between rising antisemitic and anti-Islamic sentiment within the party are mounting.

US Rep. Randy Fine, the incumbent in the state’s deep-red 6th District, has prompted considerable ire on Capitol Hill for comments denigrating Muslims, including comparing them to dogs, and saying that Gazans should “starve away” until the Israeli hostages were released. As a hardline pro-Israel voter who also wears a kippah on the House floor, Fine has made his Judaism central to his political identity, making him a litmus test for both the right and organized Jewry. 

Some of that ire has made it back to his home district, where Fine is facing primary challenger Dan Bilzerian, a celebrity poker player and Instagram influencer who routinely promotes antisemitic conspiracy theories. He has said he wants to “kill Israelis,” has called Fine a “fat Jew” and called antisemitism “a made-up term.”

He has further claimed that Israel “wanted Oct. 7 to happen” and called reports of Hamas raping victims that day “bull—t.” Bilzerian has spent at least $1 million of his own money on the race.

The primary has been marked by inflammatory rhetoric and personal attacks. Fine responded to Bilzerian’s entry into the race by declaring that “we don’t want Armenians to be able to serve in Congress” (Bilzerian is Armenian), prompting anger from Armenian-American groups.

Last week a Fine campaign sign was defaced with a swastika, an act condemned by the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish groups. In a release, Fine accused Bilzerian’s supporters of having painted the swastika, a charge Bilzerian has denied and labeled “the most jew move of all time.” 

On Friday, Fine’s campaign said the candidate had referred Bilzerian to federal investigators for allegedly receiving unreported campaign donations from China. Bilzerian’s pitch to voters heavily centers around antisemitism: “District 6 understands the jewish problem,” he wrote on social media over the weekend, accompanied by pictures of his campaign stops.

Some Jewish groups, including the American Jewish Committee, have condemned Fine’s rhetoric on Gaza and other matters. He still receives support from AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby, as well as the Republican Jewish Coalition, whose PAC has given his campaign thousands of dollars this cycle, according to federal election filings. In recent days, Republican leaders including House Speaker Mike Johnson, who had declined to condemn Fine’s earlier remarks about Muslims and dogs, have condemned Bilzerian’s antics as antisemitic. 

The combined presence of Bilzerian and Fishback on the ballot is leading at least one GOP group to lump them together as similar threats. The Front Line, a Republican PAC aligned with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and formed with the goal of curbing antisemitism within the party, released an ad during the World Cup that attacked them both. 

In the ad, which was generated with artificial intelligence, the two candidates are shown hosting a party with media personalities Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, Democratic Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, the pro-Palestinian group Code Pink and Iranian clerics who cut a giant cake made to look like a crossed-out Israeli flag.

One pro-Israel Dem faces a left-wing challenger…

Rep. Jared Moskowitz, one of the most pro-Israel Democrats in Congress, is finding himself in a familiar predicament this election cycle: fending off an anti-Zionist democratic socialist.

Activist Oliver Larkin is running against Moskowitz for the seat in the state’s 25th District, which is about 25% Jewish and is considered a toss-up in November after being redrawn this year. Moskowitz currently represents the 23rd District, which covers much of the same ground.

Moskowitz has outraised his challenger 11-to-1, according to local media estimates, and has refused to debate him. He has the support of AIPAC, which has raised at least $667,000 for him, according to analyses of federal campaign reports. 

He also has a groundswell of Jewish support in the district, even from some unlikely corners: The rabbi of a large Orthodox synagogue in Boca Raton has encouraged his congregants to change their voter registrations from Republican to Democrat in order to cast votes for Moskowitz.

Polling from Moskowitz-aligned firms has shown him with a considerable lead, while a poll from a Larkin-aligned outlet this month put the two in a statistical dead heat.

Moskowitz has also outright accused Larkin of fomenting antisemitism, telling the South Florida Sun Sentinel editorial board in a letter that his opponent “has embraced the support of individuals and organizations that have repeatedly trafficked in antisemitic rhetoric and hostility toward the Jewish community.” 

Moskowitz has also claimed that Larkin is “running against me solely on my religion.” The Sun Sentinel board rated Moskowitz’s claim “demonstrably untrue” and, in an unusual move, said it would not endorse him for reelection after he declined a joint interview with Larkin. The paper decried what it described as Moskowitz’s “lack of respect for voters.” 

But Larkin’s own language has alarmed some Jews, including his labeling of modern-day Israel as a “religious supremacist” country and his call for Israel to become a “secular” state. Asked by Fox News if he supports selling defensive weapons to Israel, Larkin responded, “I do not make a distinction between offensive and defensive weaponry.”

A rally he and other progressive candidates were scheduled to participate in with Palestinian-American Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan on Friday was moved at the last minute after the venue, citing Jewish leaders’ concerns over Tlaib’s anti-Israel rhetoric, cancelled. 

Larkin has denied charges of antisemitism and spoken positively about Judaism on the campaign trail. In a statement to JTA, his campaign said he would advocate for “the liberation of Jewish South Floridians and Jewish people the world over from antisemitism,” and said an arms embargo on Israel should be “the minimum standard for anyone claiming to support democracy.”  

He also has the support of Jewish figureheads on the anti-Zionist left. Author and trans activist Abby Stein was among a group of progressive figures who hosted a fundraiser for him in Brooklyn earlier this month.

Redistricting controversy surfaces amid primary race

Things once seemed simpler for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, an establishment Jewish Democrat and former chair of the Democratic National Committee who has comfortably served in Congress since 2004 from a safe blue seat.

But after a late GOP-led redistricting push in Florida earlier this year, prompted by President Donald Trump’s demands for Republicans to redraw their districts to help them hold the House, Wasserman Schultz’s future is suddenly a lot less certain.

Instead of the district she has represented for decades and which many Democratic observers believed she could still win despite the gerrymandering, the congresswoman decided to run in the neighboring 20th — a heavily Black district that for three decades has been represented by a Black lawmaker. 

And Wasserman Schultz’s primary opponents, including a former congresswoman facing a federal fraud trial and 2 Live Crew rap star “Uncle Luke” Campbell, aren’t happy she’s gunning for the seat. Critics accuse Wasserman Schultz of carpetbagging and say her decision to run in an easier seat will harm Black representation in government. Campbell has said her decision to run would harm Black-Jewish relations.

Even congressional leaders normally in Wasserman Schultz’s corner have balked at her decision. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries withheld an endorsement in the race, citing what he called the “sensitivities of the moment.”

Florida’s third Jewish Democratic mainstay in the House, Rep. Lois Frankel, is facing her own primary challenge in a new district, though in her case, the boundaries are similar to her old district. Frankel, a staunch Israel supporter, will have to defeat progressive challenger Victoria Doyle, a retired attorney.

The close resemblance to her old district and lack of substantive groundswell support behind Doyle likely means Frankel will retain the party’s nomination.

Besides redistricting, Wasserman Schultz and Frankel, as with other institutional Democrat figures, are also facing a voter base unhappy with the party’s status quo. This year the state’s LGBTQ+ Democratic Caucus withheld endorsements in both races, despite Wasserman Schultz’s and Frankel’s historically good relationships with the caucus. Rep. Jared Moskovitz, meanwhile, did receive the caucus’s endorsement.

DSA vs. Soviet refugee in Dem Senate primary

Democrats haven’t held a U.S. Senate seat in Florida since 2019. But in a midterm environment expected to favor the party, the state could prove pivotal, and the primary to replace former Sen. Marco Rubio is putting one of the party’s biggest division points, “socialist” branding, in the spotlight.

The frontrunner for the nomination, retired Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, is a Kyiv-born Jewish refugee from the former Soviet Union. Vindman, whose twin brother is a congressman in Virginia, attained broader name recognition during the first Trump administration, when he publicly testified about a controversial phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Vindman’s opponent is state Rep. Angie Nixon, who, in contrast to her opponent’s family history of fleeing from socialism, recently joined the Democratic Socialists of America. Nixon has made noise in her party for pushing pro-Palestinian legislation on the state level, including a push, less than a month after the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks in Israel, for “de-escalation and cease-fire in the state of Israel and occupied Palestine.” 

Nixon has campaigned alongside Oliver Larkin, as well as far-left elected figures in the party including Tlaib, and her pro-Palestinian positions are a big point of worry for some Jewish figures. But in a state with high numbers of voters, particularly Latinos, who have fled socialist or Communist regimes, it’s the candidates’ associations with the “S”-word that may prove the deciding factor.

Vindman has far outraised Nixon to date, and leads in the scant polling that has been conducted so far. A July poll from the University of North Florida, however, suggests that Nixon fares slightly better against the Republican nominee, appointed Sen. Ashley Moody.

Joseph Strauss contributed to this report.

This post was originally published on here. 

China is suspected of funding pro-Palestine marches in the UK, The Telegraph revealed exclusively last week.

According to the report, US politicians investigating alleged secret Chinese backing of Code Pink, a far-Left feminist protest group, are also examining its activities in Britain as part of an inquiry into foreign interference.

Code Pink has organized many protests in the UK against Britain’s involvement in “the genocide in Gaza”, and issued statements claiming that Britain’s leaders have been “bought by Zionism.”

The Telegraph revealed that the US investigation is examining £250,000 in alleged payments to a UK company linked to Code Pink from firms connected to Neville Roy Singham, a tech tycoon accused of financing Chinese propaganda worldwide.

“The committee is well aware that Singham’s funding is supporting pro-Hamas and pro-communist causes not only in the United States, but also overseas, including in the United Kingdom,” Jason Smith, the chairman of the US Congress Ways and Means Committee, told The Telegraph.

Congressional source: China funding pro-Hamas groups in US, UK under investigation

“We are aware that China is funding pro-Hamas and leftists in the UK and the US. That is why we are investigating it and will continue to do so,”  a congressional source told The Telegraph.

Code Pink in the US has received millions of dollars from Singham, who is facing multiple inquiries into his network and whether it disseminated pro-China propaganda on behalf of the communist regime in Beijing.

Committee links Code Pink funding and influence to Singham, Chinese government

A congressional committee has claimed that Code Pink – which was founded by Jodie Evans, Singham’s wife – appeared to have been “funded and influenced by Mr Singham and the communist Chinese government”.

Code Pink also runs a campaign called “China is not our enemy”. 

The Telegraph said Code Pink did not respond to a request for comment but has previously called the allegations against it “a big fat lie”.

Medea Benjamin, a co-founder, told the Washington Times: “We get zero money from the chinese communist party.”

This post was originally published on here. 

For many years, Oman was a country that rarely appeared in news about the Middle East. It didn’t have a conflict. There were no terrorist threats or extremism.

It was a friend of the West and a neutral country in the region. But in the last seven months, the US and Israeli war on Iran has plunged Oman into the spotlight.

Now US President Donald Trump has threatened to bomb the sultanate if it “gets in the way” of US policy regarding the Strait of Hormuz.

This is the second time that Trump has threatened Oman. It has not appeared fazed by these threats. It knows that it has to navigate a changed regional and international landscape.

The US war on Iran has accelerated changes to regional security and the world order. Many countries are now wary of unpredictable US behavior and threats.

Oman, which has been a US ally, is now also in the crosshairs of US threats. This is similar to how the US has threatened NATO allies and downgraded military drills with South Korea.

Oman knows that it can’t escape the Middle East. It is on the southern side of the Strait of Hormuz. It has to deal with the Iranians. Oman has had amicable relations with Iran in the past.

Oman’s quiet diplomacy has long shaped its foreign policy

The sultanate has pursued one of the Middle East’s most unique and pragmatic foreign policies.

Since Sultan Qaboos bin Said Al Said came to power in 1970 with British support, Muscat has maintained close security ties with the United Kingdom and the US. Rather than aligning itself fully with any one bloc, Oman developed a reputation as the region’s quiet mediator, facilitating negotiations that others could not.

It played a key role in US-Iran talks that paved the way for the 2015 nuclear agreement and has repeatedly hosted discussions on Yemen and other regional crises.

Oman has also maintained that it could improve its relationship with Israel. It has hosted Israeli officials in the past. For instance, it hosted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Muscat in 2018, for talks with Sultan Qaboos.

Although Oman has not joined the Abraham Accords, it has consistently argued that dialogue with Israel can contribute to regional stability, while continuing to support a two-state solution. As such, it was once believed that Oman might be a key to the Accords.

However, over the last few years, Oman has become more concerned about conflicts in the region, such as the war set off by the Hamas October 7 attack.

Under Sultan Haitham bin Tariq, Oman has largely continued a balanced approach. However, its role as a mediator has increasingly placed it under pressure as tensions between Washington and Tehran have grown. Most recently, Trump’s threats have turned a spotlight on Oman.

The Strait of Hormuz remains at the heart of the dispute

What may happen next: It is unlikely that the United States will actually attack Iran. After the attack on Iran, the US can ill afford new conflicts and wars.

The goal of the threats is to try to put Oman on notice that it shouldn’t do any backroom deals with Iran. Iran wants Oman to basically charge fees for ships using the Strait of Hormuz. The goal of Iran is to rope Oman into this process so that Iran can claim it has an excuse to control the Strait.

Countries in the region and the world don’t want this approach to be finalized because it would mean many strategic waterways would become dominated by the countries that border them.

The US has backed freedom of navigation for over a century. As such, ships need to be free to navigate the Strait of Hormuz. Iran wants to use pressure over the strait to bring America to the table to make a deal, or at least get it to stop threatening Iran.

This has now dragged the US into a war in the Middle East in which there is no easy out. The White House has lashed out at Oman, rather than trying to work with Muscat toward a solution.

The theory is that Oman can be threatened to stop talking to Iran.

US pressure could have wider consequences in the Gulf

This is unlikely to work. Oman can’t change its geography. It is near Iran and the Strait of Hormuz. It will always play a role in the area. Oman has been a responsible country in the past, working with the West and the region. It has important cultural and historic ties around the Indian Ocean.

These ties existed long before the US began to get involved in the Middle East.

The threats against Oman may put other US partners in the Gulf on notice. It is not clear whether the threats will succeed in getting those countries to shift their policies or serve to make them view the US as a less reliable partner. On the other hand, the threats may prevent Iran from advancing its push to control the Strait of Hormuz.

This post was originally published on here. 

The Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has killed 2,325 people, government data showed on Sunday, surpassing the toll from the 2018-2020 outbreak to become the deadliest in the country’s history.

Congo’s public health institute said in its latest report that confirmed cases had risen to 4,945, including 101 new cases detected in the previous 24 hours.

The outbreak, Congo’s 17th, was already the biggest in the country’s history in terms of number of cases – a milestone reached in late July. The latest government data shows that the total number of deaths has surpassed the 2,299 deaths recorded in Congo’s 2018-2020 outbreak, which was previously the country’s worst on record.

There are now 4,945 confirmed cases, the data showed.

Three months after it was formally announced, the outbreak is now dwarfed only by West Africa’s 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak, in which 28,616 cases and 11,310 deaths ​were recorded across Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, according to the World Health Organization.

It took nearly five months from the declaration of ‌that outbreak ⁠to hit 1,000 deaths, whereas Congo’s current outbreak hit 2,000 deaths in less than three months.

No treatments available for rare Ebola species

The current outbreak is caused by the Bundibugyo species of Ebola, which has no approved vaccines or treatments. The outbreak has gained momentum since it was declared on May 15, as weak health infrastructure, community resistance, and instability hinder the effort to identify and respond to cases.

The proportion of people dying from the outbreak after a confirmed infection, known as the case fatality ratio, has risen from about 20% in early June to 46%, according to government data, meaning nearly one in every two confirmed cases is now fatal.

Experts say the trend does not indicate the virus has become more lethal. Instead, it points to persistent shortcomings in surveillance, case detection and access to care.

“Normally, as an outbreak progresses, the case fatality ratio should fall as contact tracing improves and patients are identified and treated earlier,” said Thomas Parisch, a public health specialist recently deployed to the Democratic Republic of the Congo with Médecins Sans Frontières.

Small number of experimental vaccines, therapies evaluated

“Instead, we’re still seeing many cases detected very late, when treatment is less likely to succeed, with many identified only after they die in the community.”

A small number of experimental vaccines and therapies are being evaluated, while global health authorities assess whether existing Ebola treatments could offer protection. Evidence so far is limited to animal studies.

The outbreak earlier spread to neighboring Uganda, but authorities there managed to limit deaths to two and confirmed cases to 20 before declaring an end to the outbreak in that country last month. Ebola spreads through direct contact with the bodily fluids of infected people, living or dead.

It can cause fever, vomiting, diarrhea, and, in severe cases, internal and external bleeding.

This post was originally published on here. 

Iran’s parliament approved a bill on Sunday that would criminalize interviews and other communications with media deemed hostile to the Islamic Republic, including US or Israeli media and outlets financed by either country, Iran’s Shargh newspaper reported.

Under the bill, which must still be reviewed by the Guardian Council before it can become law, interviews or participation in discussions with such media would be banned and violations punishable by six months to two years in prison.

Interviews with other foreign media would require notification to the intelligence ministry, while contact with foreign embassies, offices of foreign organizations or other non-Iranian institutions without notification and written permission from the foreign ministry would be punishable by a fine and deprivation of certain social rights.

The bill would also harden penalties for alleged economic crimes committed under the direction or supervision of foreigners, ban providing information to foreigners without intelligence ministry approval, and restrict scientific cooperation with foreign institutions outside an approved list.

Iran’s heavy punishments for cooperation with foreign entities

It would punish policy or legislative proposals made under the direction of foreign intelligence services if they harm Iran’s security or independence, with prison terms of up to 30 years. Cases would be heard by Revolutionary Courts.

The move does not mark the first time Iran has criminalized cooperation with foreign entities. A law passed in 2025 after a 12-day war with Israel imposed tougher penalties for alleged cooperation with hostile states.

Iranian photojournalist Yalda Moaiery was sentenced this month to 15 years under that law over allegations that included giving interviews to media deemed hostile and providing photographs to US and Israel-linked organizations.

This post was originally published on here. 

The European Union intends to significantly expand sanctions against Russia in the coming months, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas told a German newspaper.

“EU sanctions have already cost Russia dearly, depriving Russia’s war machine of over €1 trillion, and for autumn I am putting forward the most far-reaching sanctions listings since the start of the war,” she told the German daily newspaper, Die Welt.

“Once adopted, they would immediately raise the total number of sanctioned Russian entities by a third. The pressure must keep growing until Moscow ends its war.”

Kallas did not elaborate further on timing or details of the new sanctions package.

EU imposes sanctions on Russian banking, cryptocurrency

The EU in July approved its most recent sanctions package against Russia over its war in Ukraine, imposing curbs on the country’s banking sector and cryptocurrency networks.

This post was originally published on here. 

Yashar presented its absorption plan for new olim (immigrants) on Sunday, aiming to reach a goal of two million olim by 2048 if elected.

The plan seeks to make absorption into Israeli society “simpler, more accessible, and more effective,” a statement from the party said.

Presented to representatives from aliyah and absorption programs, the plan has three key points: establishing a “unified framework” to support olim from while they are abroad until their complete absorption into Israel, to make it easier for olim to enter employment suited to their skills, and to remove barriers that prevent integration.

The unified framework aims to bring together resources to support immigrants across different areas, from language to education to access to rights.

Ease to enter employment would focus on making it easier to get international degrees recognized in Israel, lessons in professional and practical Hebrew, and providing olim with direct connection to employers. 

The final step of Yashar’s new aliyah absorption plan aims to “remove barriers that prevent integration” by making essential services such as banking and social support accessible in different languages.

Yashar members speak at unveiling of aliyah plan

Yashar leader Gadi Eisenkot spoke at the meeting where the plan was unveiled, saying “The strength of the State of Israel rests on the ingathering of the exiles, on constant development, and on the aspiration to be leaders in every field.”

“We will propose a national plan that will call on young people to return home and on Jews around the world to make aliyah to Israel, because this is our national home, and this is the country that should be the most advanced and leading in the world,” Eisenkot added.

Yashar’s aliyah absorption program leader Alex Rif said “aliyah is not a favor that is done for immigrants, it is the miracle thanks to which the state was established, and thanks to which it can flourish again.”

“I want to build an Israel here where every immigrant will know from the first day, not only did I choose it. It chose me.”

This post was originally published on here. 

Israel and Honduras entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Honduras in a Sunday signing ceremony, the Defense Ministry announced in a statement.

Defense Minister Israel Katz and his Honduran counterpart, Enrique Rodríguez Burchard signed the deal, which is meant to “deepen defense cooperation” between the countries, the ministry said.

The ceremony was also attended by Israel Ministry of Defense (IMOD) Director General Maj. Gen. (Res.) Amir Baram, the Senior Deputy Head of the Policy and Political-Military Bureau, Israel’s Defense Attaché to Honduras, and other senior officials from both countries.

During the visit, said the statement, the Honduran Minister of Defense, the Minister of Internal Security, and the Chief of the Joint Staff of the Honduran Armed Forces participated in “wide-ranging security discussions” with Baram.

A part of the discussions held included shared strategic and security issues, as well as ways to expand cooperation, the ministry said. Further, the Honduran officials were briefed on “key lessons” learnt from Israel’s wars in the past few years. Additionally, the delegation was informed about the IMOD’s current activities, “as well as key aspects of Israel’s defense and defense-industrial establishment.

Honduras considered key ally in Jerusalem recognition, embassy move

This Memorandum of Understanding is a part of a series of agreements designed by the IMOD over the past year, the statement said, casting these moves as “part of the Ministry’s strategy to expand Israel’s circle of defense partnerships, strengthen strategic ties with friendly nations, and deepen cooperation between Israel’s defense industries and international markets.”

The statement described Honduras as an “important partner” in Central America, and one that has supported Israel internationally over the years. In 2017, Honduras was among the nine countries who voted against a UN General Assembly resolution condemning the US’ recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

In 2021, Honduras became one of the first countries to move its embassy to Jerusalem, joining the US, Guatemala, and Kosovo.

After withdrawing its ambassador from Israel in the wake of Hamas’s October 7 massacre, Honduras appointed a new envoy in early August, who was received by President Isaac Herzog.

This post was originally published on here. 

Though Hamas’s popularity has declined among Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, Hamas leader Khalil al-Hayya still commands more support than Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, according to a new poll published by the Ramallah-based Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research on Wednesday.

The survey was conducted among 1,270 Palestinians between August 5 and 8, with 830 respondents in the West Bank and 440 in the Gaza Strip. Researchers conducted face-to-face interviews using tablets or mobile phones, with the data automatically transmitted to the research center’s server to prevent interception or manipulation. The poll had a margin of error of 3.5%.

The most popular candidate for Palestinian leadership was Fatah figure Marwan Barghouti, who is currently imprisoned in Israel and played a key role in the Second Intifada, with 54% of likely voters saying they would vote for him in a hypothetical presidential election. Al-Hayya would receive just over a quarter of the votes, 26%, and the current Palestinian Authority president would receive only 14%, according to the poll. Notably, only 10 months ago, 36% of respondents said they would support Hamas figure Khaled Meshaal, showing a drop in support by 10%.

Satisfaction with Abbas’s performance as president stands at just 20%, down slightly from 23% ten months ago, while 76% of Palestinians expressed dissatisfaction, according to the poll. Satisfaction was higher in the Gaza Strip, at 26%, than in the West Bank, where just 16% approved of his performance. The large majority, 82% in the West Bank and 74% in the Gaza Strip, want to see Abbas’s resignation.

Likely connected to Abbas’s lack of popularity, 83% of respondents said that they believed that there is corruption in PA institutions and 65% said they view the PA as a burden for Palestinians.

Despite more than half expressing support for Barghouti, 40% said they would not participate in the presidential elections.

Election turnout could be high if factions from the 2006 vote participate in today’s elections

However, if legislative elections were held in which all electoral lists or factions that participated in the 2006 elections competed, turnout would be 66%.

Fatah would receive 32% of the votes in the legislative elections, according to the poll, followed by Hamas at a close 29%.

However, among Gazan respondents alone, Hamas would receive 34%, Fatah 30%, and the combined third parties 27%.

Though more than a quarter of respondents maintained their position in favor of Hamas, the poll showed a significant decline in support for the terrorist group. Just 10 months ago, 44% of respondents overall said they would vote for Hamas, and support in Gaza specifically stood at 49%.

When asked which political party or political orientation they supported, 24% said they preferred Fatah, and 24% answered that they preferred Hamas; 14% chose third parties, and 38% said they supported none of them or did not know.

Continuing to demonstrate a trend in declining support for Hamas, ten months ago, 35% said they supported Hamas, including 41% in Gaza, but the figure now stands at only 18% in the West Bank and 33% in Gaza.

Though the survey did not seek to determine if, when, or why respondents’ views of Hamas had changed, it found that only 20% believed Hamas emerged victorious from the war against Israel. A majority, 60%, said neither side won, while 15% said Israel emerged victorious. In the Gaza Strip, 20% said Hamas won, while an identical 20% said Israel emerged victorious.

The proportion of respondents who believed Hamas had won the war nearly halved from 39% in October 2025. The decline was particularly pronounced in the West Bank, where just 21% now believe Hamas emerged victorious, down from 48% ten months ago.

Not as popular as it once was, 72% of respondents were still against Hamas disarming before a complete Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. Only 20% of respondents felt Hamas should disarm first. Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip were slightly more in favor of Hamas disarming first, with 62% opposed, compared to the West Bank where 79% insisted Israeli presence must first be removed.

Respondents believe war would resume if Hamas disarmed, Israel would not withdraw from Gaza

An overwhelming majority, 72%, said they believed that if Hamas were to disarm, the war in Gaza would resume and Israel would not fully withdraw from the Gaza Strip. Only 22% believed that Hamas’s disarmement would not be the cause of a continued war.  

One in five respondents said they believed a full-scale war would resume, while only 30% believed Gaza would move toward a period of peace and stability. Another 41% said they expected the current situation, marked by occasional Israeli strikes, to continue.

Support for a two-state solution has remained largely unchanged over the past 10 months, with 44% of respondents in favor, down 1 percentage point from October, while 50% opposed the proposal, according to the poll. Some 58% said that the two-state solution is no longer practical because of settlement expansion, while 36% answered that they believe that it remains practical. Similarly, 64% say that the chances of establishing an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel within the next five years are low or nonexistent, while 32% say that the chances are medium or high.  With the two-state solution being a divisive issue among Palestinians, 36% said they supported the alternative of returning to confrontations and armed intifada, and 33% said they supported a single Palestinian state.

More than half (53%) also said they believed that even if Hamas gave up its weapons, it would remain an “armed resistance movement” and a political movement, while only 36% believed it would focus solely on politics.

Trust in the US-backed alternative to Hamas, the Board of Peace, was low but was considered a viable political option, the survey found. If the Palestinian elections scheduled for November are held as planned and a new government is formed, 32% (43% in Gaza and 24% in the West Bank) would prefer that NCAG maintain responsibility for the Gaza Strip over the elected government. Only 28% (34% in Gaza and 24% in the West Bank) would prefer a newly elected government to assume responsibility for the administration of Gaza, while 34% do not prefer either option.

Asked their opinion of external actors, the Iran-aligned Houthi terror group was highly popular among respondents in both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The majority, 61% (63% in the West Bank and 58% in Gaza), said they were satisfied with the Houthis.

Qatar (51%), Hezbollah (50%) and Iran (50%) were also popular among Palestinian respondents, though satisfaction with Iran has grown over the past 10 months and Doha’s popularity has slightly declined since the last survey.

When asked whether they were with or against Iran during the recent war between the United States and Iran, which resulted in the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and retaliatory attacks against US bases in the region, 45% of respondents said that they were with Iran, 12% answered that they were against Iran, and 40% said that they were neither with Iran nor with the United States.

This post was originally published on here. 

Arab Israeli activist Yoseph Haddad registered a new political party ahead of the upcoming elections and has been holding talks with various figures about joining his slate, Haddad’s office confirmed to The Jerusalem Post on Sunday.

Haddad is a vocal supporter of Israel, advocating consistently for the country on news outlets and social media. He has also gone on numerous international speaking tours.

Haddad’s spokesperson said that he has been in contact with several political figures about joining the party, including Brig.-Gen. (res.) Ofer Winter, a controversial figure on the Right who has reportedly been weighing which political framework to join ahead of the elections.

“Yoseph Haddad hasn’t hidden that he’s considering entering politics and has recently been weighing his options,” his spokesperson told the Post.

“Among other moves, he’s registered a new party with partners who believe in his path.”

“At the same time, he’s been holding discussions and meetings with various figures to examine his possible next steps,” he added.

Haddad has recently returned from an advocacy trip to the US, and “will soon decide how he can best affect positive change for the State of Israel,” his office noted.

Especially after the start of Israel’s war, Haddad’s online platform grew rapidly, and he became a prominent and well-known voice on social networks, often appearing as a guest on TV programs throughout the country.

Haddad was seriously wounded in the Second Lebanon War in 2006, while serving in the IDF.

Together Vouch for Each Other aims to connect Arab and Israeli society

He has also established a nonprofit foundation, Together Vouch for Each Other. It calls to connect Arab society with Israeli society at large and to find solutions to the issues of Arab society.

In February, a Midgam Institute survey was released that showed a party led by Haddad could win four Knesset seats.

The survey found that a party led by Haddad would cross the electoral threshold, outperforming some parties currently represented in the Knesset, including MK Benny Gantz’s Blue and White.

The survey also showed that he would receive support from voters both from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s bloc and the rivaling opposition bloc, creating the possibility for his potential party to shift the dynamic in the political sphere.

In May, sources close to Haddad told the Post that he was considering partnering with former deputy mayor of Jerusalem Fleur Hassan-Nahoum in a political alliance.

Haddad aims to translate his social media following into real influence

Haddad is aiming to translate his social media support to the general public and into real influence from within the political apparatus in Jerusalem, a source close to Haddad said at the time.

Hassan-Nahoum currently serves as special envoy for trade innovation at the Foreign Affairs Ministry. In 2024, she became secretary-general of Kol Israel, a faction of the World Zionist Congress.

She led the Yerushalmim party in 2013. From 2018 until 2023, she served as deputy mayor of Jerusalem and was previously a member of the Jerusalem city council.

In 2022, Hassan-Nahoum ran in the Likud primaries ahead of the elections, where she scored 73 on the party’s list and therefore did not make it into the Knesset.

General elections are set to take place on October 27.

This post was originally published on here. 

Dear Mayor Mamdani, 

Local politics is complicated, believe me I know more than most. 

People run for local office without knowing the job. Without ever stepping foot in a public meeting. Without knowing how to read an agenda packet, let alone how to make a motion. Most run without understanding that campaigning and governing are two entirely different things. It baffles me. 

The first act of a mayor matters.

It tells everyone who you are going to be once the lawn signs come down. It tells your colleagues how you intend to lead and your constituents what matters to you. One oft he most powerful things I have ever watched a mayor do on day one was apologize. 

Imagine that. The first act as mayor for Michael Pagan was to publicly acknowledge that a vote he had cast on a Planning Board appointment had hurt a colleague and the community he served. That is leadership. 

Yours? You inherited a city in the middle of an antisemitism crisis you had already helped fuel. You also inherited the largest Jewish population outside Israel. That should have imposed a special seriousness on the way you approached this issue from your first hour in office. So your first act was to walk into City Hall and rip the protections in place for your Jewish constituents out from under their feet! You played politics with your constituents lives and safety by revoking the IHRA definition of antisemitism. You revoked mayor Eric Adams’s order directing the NYPD and Law Department to figure out how to better protect people going to pray. 

Why? 

Seriously.

Why? 

Antisemitic protestors were already screaming “we are Hamas.”

Jews were already being harassed walking into shul, school, showing their Magen David or wearing a kippah. 

Your predecessor looked at that and said “this is dangerous, we need to do more.” 

No, Eric Adams did not eradicate antisemitism. Antisemitism surged after October 7 while he was mayor too, but he looked at what was happening and said this is dangerous, we need to do more, and he did! He understood his job and he protected his constituents, every one of them! 

So let’s stop pretending the IHRA decision was some meaningless administrative cleanup. You knew exactly why it mattered.

Antisemites figured out a long time ago that they can say “Zionist” instead of “Jew” and suddenly everyone gets very confused about whether they are allowed to call it antisemitism. Your first act as mayor made that easier. Your first act as mayor gave progressive Nazis exactly what they wanted, permission to target Jews while escaping the one label society only knows how to condemn when the Nazi happens to be on the right. You told every Jew in New York and worldwide watching what was happening outside our shuls that your ideological purity mattered more than the warning signs sitting right in front of you and now look where we are! 

I do not care what you intended when you signed your first executive orders. Intent is for campaign speeches. 

Consequences are what you govern. 

We’ve see what happens when people put ideological purity over safety of the people they serve, whether they voted for them or not. We have seen where that train ends, Mr. Mamdani! 

We watched you defend “globalize the intifada.” 

Do you understand what Jews hear when someone says “globalize the intifada”? We remember the intifada. 

We remember buses exploding. 

Restaurants. 

Cafes. 

Families. 

Blood.

Bodies.

Fear. 

It is very easy to find a different definition for a word when your children are not the intended target. 

Friday night, Larry Montes walked into Central Synagogue, one of New York City’s most prominent shuls during Shabbat services, disrupted services, struck a 63-year-old Jewish woman in the face, spat on a 65-year-old security guard and head-butted him, and damaged shul property. 

Jews worldwide already need police officers standing guard while we pray, and a woman was still attacked inside the shul while praying on your watch! 

You say you are horrified.

What are you going to do with that horror?

Your job is not commentator-in-chief.

Mayor Mamdani, I am tired of horror after the fact.

I am tired of your thoughts and prayers!

You were not blindsided by what is happening to Jewish New Yorkers, you were warned! The outgoing mayor literally left you an executive order telling you that Jews and houses of worship needed more protection. 

This very week, Jewish leaders sat across from you at City Hall and told you directly that the way you continued to talk about Israel endangered the Jewish community at large. They were not asking you to become a Zionist. They were asking the mayor of New York City to be a leader. 

You are the mayor, act it! 

You made Israel, Zionism and the Jewish state a recurring target of your politics in a city where Jews were already being attacked at grotesquely disproportionate rates, and every time Jews told you there was a connection we got another lecture about the difference between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. 

 !די 

We know the definition. There is no difference! When you say Zionist, you mean Jew! 

The person screaming “Zionist” at a Jew does not stop and ask whether the Jew has ever voted in an Israeli election. 

The person showing up at a synagogue is not checking everyone’s position on Netanyahu. The man wearing a kippah on the Upper West Side is not suddenly protected because someone insists their hatred is technically about Israel. 

A shul full of Jews does not become a legitimate political target because you call the people inside “Zionists.” 

This distinction you keep defending so carefully on paper is collapsing on Jewish bodies. We am tired of watching Jews have to become victims before everyone suddenly discovers it’s too late.

Words matter, Mayor Mamdani! 

Why does a Jew have to bleed before the vocabulary gets easy? 

You do not get to spend years pouring gasoline into an already combustible argument about Jews, Zionism and Israel and then stand over the flames expressing shock that the room is hot. Jews have been standing in front of you telling you exactly what the atmosphere feels like, but you keep arguing with the weather report while we are standing in the rain. 

You said your administration would do everything in its power to keep Jewish New Yorkers safe. It’s too late. The intifada is globalized!

Listen to the Jews, and not only the Jews who make your politics comfortable. Listen to the Jews who are angry with you. 

Listen to the Jews who hear “intifada” and remember what intifada actually looked like. Listen to the Jews who hear crowds screaming about Zionists and know exactly who is being addressed. 

Listen to Jewish parents wondering how much security their children need to go to school. Listen to the Jew who sees a police officer outside synagogue and feels both grateful and sick that he has to be there. 

Listen before someone else is hurt. 

We were afraid

We told you. 

So no, Mayor Mamdani, “horrified” is not enough. 

Your words carry the authority of City Hall. 

What you normalize matters. 

What you condemn matters. 

What you refuse to condemn matters. 

What you repeal matters. 

What you excuse as political debate matters. 

At some point, you have to govern the city that actually exists instead of the semantic distinction you wish existed. 

There is a reason hatred aimed at a country thousands of miles away keeps landing on Jews in New York. 

I say this to you not as someone unfamiliar with public office. 

I know what it means when residents come before government and tell us they are afraid. Our responsibility is not to tell them their fear and experiences are wrong! Our responsibility is to hear the warning while there is still something we can do about it. 

Restore the protections your predecessor left for Jewish New Yorkers today, or resign! 

Stop treating “globalize the intifada” like a linguistic misunderstanding. 

Stop using the mayoralty of New York as a platform for an obsessive prosecution of the Jewish people and their homeland. 

Tell your political allies that a protest does not become progressive because Jews are the ones being intimidated. 

Tell them that t replacing the word “Jew” with “Zionist” does not give them moral immunity. Most importantly, Listen! 

Friday night should have been Shabbat. A woman should have been able to enter Central Synagogue without becoming another hate-crime statistic. A security guard should not have been spat on and head-butted while protecting Jews at prayer. A police officer should not have to stand between a Jewish congregation and violence for Jews to worship in Manhattan. That is where New York is and you are its mayor. 

I will put this on the table. 

I publicly offer a public open meeting with Mayor Mamdani and his team to offer any help that will keep Jewish New Yorkers safe, and by extension mine. Name the time and place and let’s get to work. The ball is in your court Mr. Mayor. Motion to adjourn.

The writer is a councilwoman in Teaneck, New Jersey.

This post was originally published on here. 

Can the Palestinian Authority (PA) be held civilly responsible for the October 7 massacre even if the plaintiffs cannot produce records showing that it directly paid the Hamas terrorists who planned and carried it out?

That question sits at the center of litigation brought by more than 8,000 plaintiffs now moving through the Jerusalem District Court, where they are seeking to hold the PA responsible for deaths, injuries, and other harm caused by the massacre and the war that followed.

Lt.-Col. (res.) Maurice Hirsch, a former director of the IDF Military Prosecution in the West Bank whose recent study examines the PA and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) prisoner-payment system and its possible connection to October 7, does not expect the litigation to uncover a neat paper trail linking individual Hamas leaders to PA payments.

“I don’t think we’re going to see individual links to the PA,” Hirsch told The Jerusalem Post in a Monday interview. “I think it’s going to be very, very difficult to find that type of evidence.”

That evidentiary gap is central to the cases. Hirsch argued that the question is broader than whether a particular October 7 terrorist received a particular payment. The question is whether the PA’s long-standing system of paying, supporting, and employing prisoners and released prisoners can itself provide a sufficient connection to people who later returned to terrorism.

“What will most likely happen is that most of the discussion will be about the prima facie [initial] responsibility of the PA, if that can even be shown,” Hirsch said. “It will very much depend on whether the judge accepts this argument that the PA is responsible because of the payment of the salaries.”

The court has not decided that question.

In a July 1 decision, Jerusalem District Court Judge Eran Shilo set a common procedure for the thousands of lawsuits, separating the shared question of the PA’s potential responsibility from the individual circumstances and damages claimed by each plaintiff. The plaintiffs’ law firms were initially ordered to submit short written arguments, while the PA is due to file a single response by October 18.

Case remains in early stages of written arguments and information gathering

The case is still in that written-argument and information-gathering stage. Under Shilo’s timetable, plaintiffs’ attorneys were required to send written questions to the PA by August 11, with the PA due to provide answers and relevant documents by October 29. Expert reports are also expected to address whether the PA’s conduct can be connected to the massacre.

In a later August 3 decision, Shilo said a deadline for supplemental written arguments would be extended to August 16 if no objection was filed by August 6.

Shilo has left open the possibility of eventually deciding the common question of the PA’s responsibility before dealing with damages in thousands of individual cases, but said it was too early to know whether the evidence would allow that.

In 2024, the Knesset passed a law allowing victims of terrorism to seek exemplary damages from perpetrators and entities that reward terrorism.

The law provides for NIS 10 million for each person killed in a terrorist attack and NIS 5 million for a victim left permanently disabled, and was designed to make it easier for victims to establish a legal link to entities with an institutional policy of rewarding terrorism.

October 7, however, presents a more difficult question. Hamas led the massacre, meaning the plaintiffs suing the PA must first establish why the PA’s own conduct or policies make it legally responsible for the harm caused by the attack.

Hirsch’s study argues that the relevant PA/PLO system went considerably beyond monthly payments made while prisoners were in Israeli custody.

Drawing on Palestinian legislation, regulations, and financial records, Hirsch’s study describes a broader framework that included payments to prisoners, grants upon release, employment rights in PA institutions, and continued financial support in some cases where employment was unavailable.

A 2013 amendment and implementing regulations provided that released prisoners who had served more than 10 years would be employed and paid by PA institutions, with their rank and salary determined in part by time served. The regulations also required those employed under the arrangement to report for work only if called upon to do so.

For Hirsch, that employment component is crucial. He argued that the framework could provide released prisoners with an income while leaving them free to return to activity in terrorist organizations.

Much of his study focuses on Palestinians freed in the 2011 exchange for kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Schalit, in which Israel released 1,027 prisoners. They included Yahya Sinwar and several others who later rose to senior positions in Hamas’s political, military, security, and financial structures.

Hirsch’s study points to Sinwar, Rawhi Mushtaha, Tawfik Abu Naim, and Zaher Jabarin, among others, and argues that their prison terms entitled them to benefits under the PA framework.

It also cites Ali Qadi, a Hamas Nukhba commander who led one of the groups that invaded Israel on October 7, and argues that based on his known prison term, he would at least have qualified for the fixed payment available to released prisoners who had served between five and 10 years.

There is an important distinction between eligibility and proof of payment

But there is an important distinction between eligibility and proof of payment; Hirsch’s study does not point to individual records showing precisely what those Hamas figures received, whether each was formally placed on a PA payroll, or whether any payments continued until October 7.

Hirsch acknowledged that gap, but said his theory of responsibility does not depend entirely on proving a particular salary was transferred to a particular individual.

“I don’t have to show that they’re specifically receiving a salary, because there is this policy,” he said.

Whether the court accepts that argument remains to be seen.

Hirsch also pointed to the history of prisoners who returned to terrorism following their release. His study documents numerous Schalit-deal prisoners who resumed terrorist activity, some of whom later reached senior positions within Hamas.

For Hirsch, those cases matter because they raise a separate question of what the PA knew about the people benefiting from its policies.

“They were on notice, as it were,” he said. “These released terrorists that you’re employing, they’re going back to terrorism.”

His study does not argue that the payment system alone caused October 7. Rather, Hirsch contends that the financial and employment framework reduced the economic consequences of involvement in terrorism and materially assisted some experienced terrorists who later returned to Hamas activity.

The PA and PLO shifted responsibility for the prisoner-payment system between different bodies over the years, according to Hirsch’s study. He argued that those administrative changes did not, however, alter the underlying policy and attributes the framework jointly to the two organizations.

The latest major change came in February 2025, when PA President Mahmoud Abbas issued a decree revoking provisions underpinning the previous prisoner-payment system, and transferring assistance to the Palestinian National Economic Empowerment Institution (PNEEI).

The restructured system was presented as one in which assistance would be distributed according to financial need rather than according to imprisonment or sentence length.

PA says reforms ended sentence-based payments, with aid now determined solely by social need

The PA has said the reform ended sentence-based payments and that assistance under the new system is determined solely by social need.

Hirsch, however, argued that the overhaul changed the mechanism rather than ending the underlying policy. His study points to subsequent 2025 financial data as evidence that payments to prisoners and released prisoners continued after the reform.

The study notes that an independent audit concluded that the restructured mechanism complied with its stated mandate, while Hirsch argued that financial figures cited in the audit and other available data nevertheless show the continuation of substantial prisoner-related payments.

For the October 7 lawsuits, however, the central question remains what happened before the massacre and whether the plaintiffs can establish a sufficiently close legal connection between the PA’s conduct and the harm they suffered.

Hirsch does not argue that the PA was solely responsible for October 7 but, “the PA certainly does have at least joint responsibility with Hamas for the massacre,” in his opinion.

For now, the litigation is still several steps away from answering it. The plaintiffs must first put forward the evidence and legal theory connecting the PA to October 7, and the PA has yet to file its substantive response to the common liability claims.

Whether that broader system can establish a sufficient legal link to October 7 without individual payment records is now one of the questions the litigation will have to test.

This post was originally published on here. 

US envoy Jared Kushner, former British prime minister Tony Blair, and Gazan Board of Peace (BoP) Director-General Nikolay Mladenov met with a Hamas delegation in Cairo on Sunday to discuss the implementation of the BoP’s 15-point roadmap for the Gaza Strip, a source familiar with the matter told The Jerusalem Post.

The source stated that the objective of the meeting was to translate the steps outlined in Mladenov’s roadmap into concrete, verifiable actions aimed at maintaining the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel and removing Hamas from power in Gaza.

The meeting also covered the transfer of all governing responsibilities in the strip to the technocratic National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) and deployment of the International Stabilization Force (ISF).

According to the source, the US and Hamas delegations also discussed the decommissioning of Hamas weapons and terror infrastructure, IDF withdrawal, and reconstruction and humanitarian relief efforts in Gaza.

The source told the Post that ‘there can be no ambiguity: Hamas must relinquish governing authority and all weapons and military infrastructure. And Gaza can never again be a source of terror for Israel.”

Kushner, Mladenov, Blair to meet with Netanyahu over Gaza future

Additionally, Kushner, Mladenov, and Blair will meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other senior Israeli officials on Monday, with the aim of advancing Trump’s 20-point plan for the Gaza Strip.

“The United States and Israel agree on the end state, which is a demilitarized Hamas. We will hear the concerns raised and discuss the next steps. What matters is that both sides agree on the desired outcome and are working to find ways to accelerate progress,” a BoP source told the Post.

The council maintains that there are “no significant gaps” between the BoP and Israel, and that it is possible to reach a point where the process moves to the next stage of the plan, namely the disarmament of Hamas.

“Israel rejects the Board of Peace’s 15-point document on Gaza. The IDF will not carry out any withdrawal until Hamas is genuinely disarmed,” Netanyahu said last week.

In recent days, Israel resumed targeted killings in the Gaza Strip after halting them for several days.

Israeli officials said that Hamas not only failed to use the period during which the targeted killings were suspended to prepare for the disarmament process, but instead used it to further strengthen its military capabilities.

Trump announced Board of Peace agreement in July

Trump announced that the Board of Peace had reached a “historic” agreement for the complete disarmament of Hamas and all other armed groups in Gaza at the end of July.

He added that the agreement marks a “critical step towards Gaza finally being governed by a new Palestinian government that will work closely with the Board of Peace to help the Palestinian people.”
 
“At the same time, Israel will have the security it deserves, with Gaza no longer used as a base for terror attacks.”

According to Trump, the agreement will be carried out in “carefully structured phases.”

A Board of Peace official at the time had told The Jerusalem Post that while Hamas had many concerns regarding the deal, it and other Palestinian factions had agreed to the entire proposed outline for the first time. 

About a week later, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had formally rejected the plan during a cabinet meeting, affirming that “the IDF will not carry out any withdrawal until Hamas is genuinely disarmed.”

Esther Davis, Idan Kweller, and Reuters contributed to this report.

This post was originally published on here. 

The clock has been ticking for two months since the June “ceasefire” between the US and Iran, and still the Islamic Republic is rearming.

That should dominate Israel’s thinking about every day that passes without an agreement capable of restraining the Iranian regime.

The Jerusalem Post’s Yonah Jeremy Bob reported last week that Israeli defense officials have been shocked by the speed with which Iran is recovering from the damage inflicted during the war.

The concern stretches across several parts of its military infrastructure, including the ballistic missile program, that remains an immediate strategic threat to Israel.

The figures are sobering to look at, given the ease with which the US and Israel bombarded the Iranians’ military sites for two months from February through April.

Israel and the United States struck more than 2,600 missile and military-industrial targets during the roughly 40-day war, carrying out some 30,000 attacks, and it left Israeli officials believing the scale of the destruction had crippled Iran’s ability to restore its military industries at anything like their previous pace.

Iran rebuilds its missile capabilities faster than Israel expected

Iran has already confounded such assessments before. After Israeli strikes in October 2024, officials believed missile production had been set back by a year or more.

By early 2025, production had recovered. Following far greater attacks in June 2025, Israel again believed the production network had been crippled for years. And yet, as it always seems to, Iran rebuilt again.

Now the Post has confirmed that Iran is producing new weapons at a much faster pace than Israeli planners anticipated. If it can return to manufacturing 100 to 300 ballistic missiles a month, it could restore its arsenal to June 2025 levels by early or mid-2027.

That is the clock Israel must watch.

Diplomatic clock runs down as Iran maintains pressure in Hormuz

Friday brought another reminder of how badly the diplomatic clock is running. Transit through the Strait of Hormuz appeared to slow almost to a standstill after two more ships were attacked.

The United Arab Emirates blames Iran for attacks on two vessels belonging to the state-owned Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, while shipping through the strait remains a fraction of its prewar level.

Tehran continues to use Hormuz as leverage, demanding sanctions relief and the release of frozen assets before the waterway fully reopens.

The United States says it can maintain its naval blockade indefinitely and promises still more economic pressure.
Yet almost two months after the June ceasefire agreement created an opening for diplomacy, a wider deal is nowhere in sight. There has yet to be any breakthrough over Hormuz, nor is there a durable settlement on Iran’s nuclear program.

The ballistic missile threat remains unresolved, and the pressure campaign has yet to return Tehran to the negotiating table on terms that can give Israel confidence the danger is actually receding. The longer this goes on, the more it looks like the

Americans are operating without a real, strategic plan.

Meanwhile, the work inside Iran continues.

Every month without an agreement gives Iran more time to rebuild

Every month gives Iranian engineers, commanders, and procurement networks more time to reopen facilities, replace machinery, uncover underground missile sites, disperse production, and replenish stocks.

The longer negotiations drag on without enforceable restrictions, the more the military achievement bought at enormous cost begins to erode.

Israel cannot afford to wake up next year and discover that a threat believed to have been pushed back by years was delayed by only a matter of months.

Diplomacy remains the preferable route if it produces an agreement that genuinely constrains Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities. Israel has every reason to support such an outcome.

Endless negotiations, however, carry their own strategic price when the country on the other side of the table is rebuilding while it talks.

But as the Post has stated before, Israel is directly in the firing line. The United States is not. If we need to take matters into our own hands, then that should be our prerogative, whatever our working relationship with the US.

Two months have already been spent trying to turn a ceasefire into something more permanent. Iran has spent those same two months recovering.

Washington and its allies must now put a limit on how long this process can continue without results. Israel cannot afford to give Iran any more time to rearm. 

This post was originally published on here. 

Can plants go moo? Well, not exactly, but a new Hebrew University of Jerusalem (HUJI) study has brought a step closer to the possibility that plant seeds could manufacture and store one of milk’s most important proteins – the same ones that give milk its nutrition, creamy texture, and cheese-making properties.

The discovery would thus help overcome a major hurdle in producing real dairy proteins without cows, paving the way for more sustainable dairy ingredients, less climate change, and alternative food production.

Just published in Frontiers in Plant Science under the title “Microscope reveals surprising milk protein clusters in engineered seeds,” the research was led by Prof. Oded Shoseyov of the Robert H. Smith Faculty of Agriculture, Food, and Environment at HUJI, together with lead author Almog Ozeri and Mai Shamir, Miron Abramson, Barak Cohen, and Amir Rudich.

The team showed that plants can successfully manufacture ß-casein, one of the major proteins found in cow’s milk. Even more surprising, the protein accumulated in an entirely unexpected location inside plant cells, revealing a previously unknown pathway that could help improve the production of animal proteins in crops.

According to their press release, “As global demand for dairy continues to grow while concerns mount over greenhouse gas emissions, land use, and water consumption associated with livestock farming, scientists have been searching for sustainable ways to produce authentic dairy proteins without relying on animals.

“Plant molecular farming, using crops as miniature protein factories, has emerged as one of the most promising approaches, but producing complex milk proteins in plants has remained a major technical challenge.”

To tackle this problem, the researchers engineered seeds from Arabidopsis (thale cress), a weed in the mustard family (Brassicaceae) native to Eurasia and Africa. It is commonly found along the shoulders of roads where plant cover is lost, or soil is churned up by construction, grading, fire, or heavy traffic.

Plants used to produce bovine ß-casein

They used it to produce bovine ß-casein fused to an oil-body protein called oleosin, which is bound to plant oil bodies. Testing several different “cellular addresses,” they directed the protein to various compartments within the plant cell to determine where it would accumulate most efficiently.

Shoseyov told The Jerusalem Post in an interview that the team’s findings were totally unexpected. “The protein absolutely behaves like real dairy ß-casein – even better.”

Asked why the plants ignored their instructions, he suggested that it was “probably due to the gap between what we think we know and what we actually know.”

“Biological systems are far more sophisticated,” Shoseyov continued. “While we can’t claim it’s an entirely new biological pathway – we need further investigation to come up with such a statement – it opens some very interesting opportunities. It’s likely that we’ve simply overlooked something that plants have always done.”

They created a “novel food ingredient that combines protein and oil that may be either integrated into existing dairy products or will be used to produce entirely new tasty and nutritious food products more cost-effectively and sustainably compared to the existing dairy industry,” he said.

“We estimate that in 18 to 24 months, we’ll reach the commercial stage. The biggest remaining obstacle ahead is adoption of the technique by industry. We have already begun discussions with the US Food and Drug Administration.”

Shoseyov already holds over 100 patents relating to his work in protein engineering, nanobiotechnology, and bio-inspired materials.

Although precision fermentation already produces dairy proteins, plants have an advantage because protein production and extraction in plants is up to 100 times cheaper compared with fermentation, he said.

Shoseyov suggested that safflower (Carthamus tinctorius) is the intended commercial and agricultural crop platform for this technology. Arabidopsis was the research model that was used in the lab because of its fast life cycle, small genome, and ease of genetic transformation, but safflower is the targeted crop.

Once the artificially designed segment of DNA is assembled in a lab and everything is validated in Arabidopsis, it is transferred to safflower for scaled agricultural production.

Milk is only four percent protein, 3% fat, with some sugars, but it’s mainly water, said the HUJI expert. “Safflower seeds contain about 10 times more concentrated protein and fat.”

“Thus, for every 10 trucks that carry cold milk, we would need to use only one at room temperature, and upon arrival at the factory, the seeds could be stored in a silo at room temperature for up to one year.”

Safflower seeds are white; the oil is colorless and has no flavor, therefore avoiding coconutty, beany, or oaty cereal-like odors of “milks” made from coconut, soy, or oats. In addition, safflower plants prefer hot weather and require very little water for irrigation, if any, thus making them an ideal crop for global warming.”

As demand grows for environmentally sustainable sources of protein, discoveries like this bring scientists closer to producing authentic dairy ingredients in plants that require only sunlight, water, and soil to grow, he continued.

More opportunities for dairy farmers

Asked what dairy farmers will do, Shoseyov said they’ll have more opportunities. “Regular dairy is not going to vanish. In the next 20 years, most of the plant-based dairy proteins will be used in hybrid products to reduce price and meet sustainability goals. The farmers may expand their growing seasons to grow our crops and supply them to their dairy factory customers.”

The largest growth in demand will come from the Asia-Pacific region, and countries that are likely to become the major growers are Australia, the US, Argentina, Brazil, Ukraine, China, and eventually India and Africa.

“We already started discussions with the FDA. There is a very clear path. It should not be too difficult. In five years, I hope to see our plants grown all over the world and the shelves in the supermarkets loaded with our plant dairy products,” Shoseyov said.

“But mostly, I hope that our dairy safflower seeds will contribute to the food security of Israel. I look forward to tasting mozzarella cheese made of our novel ingredient.”

Asked if his discovery could end up being more important for medicines than for dairy since plant molecular farming also produces pharmaceuticals – so farms would become protein factories rather than food factories, Shoseyov responded, “I am positive that the pharmaceutical industry will enjoy this discovery to manufacture biological drugs, such as humanized antibodies.”

“Nevertheless, the food industry is four times larger than the pharmaceutical industry. Consumers will know they’re eating proteins that came from a flower instead of a cow because transparency is mandatory in the food industry.”

“One of the most exciting aspects of science is when nature surprises you,” Shoseyov went on to say. “We set out to send the protein to one location inside the cell, but instead, we found that the plant had effectively created its own storage solution.”

“Understanding this unexpected behavior gives us valuable insight into how plants handle complex proteins and may help us engineer more efficient systems for producing sustainable dairy proteins in the future.”

This post was originally published on here. 

The IDF killed senior Hezbollah commander Abu Hassan Alaa during weekend strikes in the Deir ez-Zahrani area in southern Lebanon, the military announced on Sunday morning.

Alaa served as a commander in Hezbollah’s Bader Unit and had carried out attacks on IDF soldiers operating in the region. 

The military noted that its strikes came alongside those from over the weekend at Hezbollah’s headquarters in the Ansar area, in which Ali Samir Al-Haj Hassan, a battalion commander in Hezbollah’s Radwan Force unit, was killed.

Both attacks came in response to the incident in which three IDF soldiers were seriously wounded over the weekend.

However, the IDF noted on Saturday that, at the time of the strike, Hassan’s family was with him inside the headquarters.

IDF, PMO says military was unaware of civilians in Hezbollah HQ during strike

“It should be emphasized that the family members were not the target of the strike,” the IDF wrote in a statement. “The strike was specifically directed at Hassan, who was a lawful target under international law.”

“The terrorist used his family as human shields, hiding alongside them inside the military headquarters.”

The Prime Minister’s Office said that it had been unaware that Hezbollah put civilians in the Hezbollah military compound.

“Only later did the IDF learn that Hezbollah deliberately put civilians in that military compound. Hezbollah is willing to do anything, including using its own civilians as human shields, to falsely accuse Israel of deliberately targeting civilians, which the IDF clearly did not.”

Shoshana Baker and Corinne Baum contributed to this report.

This post was originally published on here. 

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un reaffirmed the deepening of ties with Russia in a message to President Vladimir Putin as Pyongyang marked the anniversary of independence from Japan’s colonial rule, KCNA state news agency said on Sunday.

Kim was replying to a message of congratulations from Putin marking Saturday’s 81st anniversary of Tokyo’s surrender in World War Two. The Russian leader said the bond was forged as Soviet soldiers fought against Japan and that cooperation would continue “in all the sectors.”

The North Korean leader expressed hope for the future of ties that had “carried forward the history of common struggle for justice and precious traditions of friendship.”

Pyongyang and Moscow have grown closer since the reclusive state began deploying troops and weapons to support Russia’s war against Ukraine in what has been Pyongyang’s most significant involvement in a war since the 1950s.

The Russian ship Pallada arrived at Wonsan port for a goodwill visit on Saturday tied to the liberation anniversary, and was greeted by North Korean provincial officials and Russian embassy staff, KCNA said.

South Korean President calls for talks

Also on Saturday, South Korean President Lee Jae Myung called for talks with the rival North aimed at peaceful coexistence, telling Seoul’s Liberation Day ceremony that the two Koreas need safeguards to prevent conflict and should work to replace their armistice with a “peace regime.”

Lee urged dialogue to formally end the 1950-1953 Korean War, which ended in a ceasefire but no peace treaty, and said the talks could explore ways to curb Pyongyang’s nuclear program.

Pyongyang has rejected Lee’s overtures and criticized US-South Korean military exercises as provocations.

On Thursday, Putin drew Tokyo’s condemnation with a visit to an island off Hokkaido, claimed by Japan, that Moscow seized in the days after Japan’s 1945 surrender. 

This post was originally published on here. 

Israel’s summer weather is expected to bring another surprise on Sunday.

Alongside the intense heat, local rain and isolated thunderstorms are expected starting in the afternoon, mainly in eastern Israel, as the Israel Meteorological Service has warned of possible flooding in the Judean Desert and Dead Sea area, the northern Arava, and the northeastern Negev.

Temperatures are expected to fall slightly on Monday, bringing some relief from the heat. Conditions will be partly cloudy, with temperatures slightly below average in the mountains and inland areas. Local rain will still be possible from the afternoon, mainly in the east.

Tuesday will be partly cloudy to clear, with no significant change in temperatures. On Wednesday, after morning cloud cover clears, conditions will become mostly clear, with temperatures rising slightly in the mountains and inland areas.

Alongside the rain, the Israel Meteorological Service issued an early red warning for extreme heat, which will remain in effect on Sunday from 11 a.m. to 10 p.m.

The warning applies to the Beit She’an Valley, the Kinneret Valley, the Jordan Valley, the northern and southern Judean Desert and Dead Sea areas, and the northern Arava. Elsewhere in the country, conditions will be partly cloudy to clear, with no significant temperature changes.

How rare is this unusual forecast?

The unusual forecast follows heavy rainfall in eastern Israel on Saturday, when large amounts of rain fell within a short period, causing flooding and flash floods.

About 26 mm of rain was recorded in Ma’ale Adumim, including 21 mm in just one hour. Flooding in eastern and southern Jerusalem neighborhoods required residents to be rescued from homes and vehicles, while about 15 mm fell in Gush Etzion over a short period.

A localized flash flood was recorded in the Judean Desert, while water flowed through the upper section of the Kidron Stream following rainfall in east Jerusalem.

Forecaster Danny Roup explained in a special column in Walla that light rain or drizzle during the summer months is not particularly unusual, but that the current event differs from a typical summer rain event.

According to Roup, atmospheric instability led to the development of clouds over southern and eastern Israel, producing large amounts of rain in a short period. Such conditions are more typical of September, October, and November.

The most unusual aspect of the event was the rainfall amount. Israel has documented only a handful of events in which more than 25 mm of rain fell in August since measurements began, including in the Golan Heights in 2012, Kfar Galim in 1971, and Zichron Ya’acov in 1920.

According to the data, the amount recorded in the Judean Desert is particularly unusual for August and may even represent a historic record in the area’s rainfall measurements.

However, the event was highly localized. While heavy rain fell in parts of eastern and southern Jerusalem, only about 5 mm was recorded in the center of the capital, and most of the country did not experience unusual weather.

“Rain in summer, not rare. Rain like this in summer, definitely rare,” Roup concluded.

According to Roup, a single weather event cannot be directly linked to climate change, but global warming is expected to result in more localized and extreme weather events.

Police prepare for road closures

Following the unusual rain, flooding, and flash floods, Judea and Samaria District police officers will be deployed along roads and major routes in at-risk areas.

According to police, the main risk of flooding in the Judean Desert streams and in the northern and southern Dead Sea areas is expected between noon and 6 p.m.

Police urged the public to plan trips in advance and adjust routes to the expected weather conditions. Hikers were also asked to avoid streams and hiking trails in areas at risk of flooding because of the danger of being swept away and the serious risk to life.

Police will issue updates on road closures and traffic disruptions throughout the day. Information on changes to traffic arrangements will also be available through the police information hotline at 110.

This post was originally published on here. 

Yemen’s Mocha port has suspended commercial and maritime operations after being hit by more than 25 missiles in Houthi attacks over recent days, the port’s director said on Saturday.

The attacks killed seven people and caused an estimated $16 million in losses, the director told a news conference.

Mocha is a Red Sea port near the Bab al-Mandab strait, a strategic chokepoint connecting the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden and a key route for international shipping.

Forces aligned with Yemen’s internationally recognized government control the port. It has a smaller cargo capacity than Yemen’s main ports of Aden and Hodeidah.

Yemen’s government said on Friday the Houthis fired six ballistic missiles at Mocha that day, killing at least four civilians and targeting civilian, economic, and maritime facilities.

Houthis claim to target weapons, warships

The Houthis said they targeted a military build-up of weapons and warships belonging to Saudi-backed forces in Mocha.

The escalation comes amid heightened regional tensions from the US war on Iran and has raised concerns about a return to large-scale conflict in Yemen.

Major fighting in Yemen had largely subsided following a UN-brokered truce in 2022, but efforts to reach a lasting political settlement have stalled.

This post was originally published on here. 

The Weitzman National Museum of American Jewish History in Philadelphia was vandalized on Thursday with an antisemitic inscription, about a year after the museum was attacked twice within a single week.

The incident occurred at around 8:15 p.m. Philadelphia police said a man wrote the antisemitic message on the yellow OY/YO sculpture outside the museum, which is located near the Delaware River in Old City, Philadelphia’s historic district.

Old City includes Independence National Historical Park, home to Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell, two landmarks closely associated with the founding of the United States.

The inscription has since been removed, but police have not apprehended the suspect. Police obtained surveillance footage showing him carrying out the vandalism before boarding a train at a nearby station.

Officers asked anyone with information that could help identify the suspect to contact them. The wording of the antisemitic inscription has not been released yet.

Pennsylvania state Rep. Tarik Khan, a Democrat, spotted the vandalism and reported it to police. He told television station WPVI that “it just turned my stomach.”

“Whether you are Jewish or not, people understand that we have to stand up against hate in our community. We cannot tolerate hate, and when we see something wrong, we have to stand up and take action,” Khan said. 

A Muslim Democrat’s long-standing ties to the Jewish community

Although Khan is not Jewish, he has longstanding ties to the Jewish community. He describes himself as a “Muslim kid who grew up in a Jewish neighborhood, with a Catholic mother,” and has said that experience shaped his views on interfaith partnership.

Khan is also a member of the Pennsylvania Jewish Legislative Caucus, despite not being Jewish.

Andrew Goretsky, senior regional director of the Anti-Defamation League in Philadelphia, said the incident was “deeply frustrating, but unfortunately not surprising.”

According to Goretsky, the number of recorded incidents of antisemitic vandalism in Pennsylvania rose from 29 in 2022 to 80 in 2025.

“As a Jewish community, we will not hide our identity. We will continue to survive and thrive despite these targeted attacks,” he added.

Goretsky called on public leaders to condemn such acts, urged the public to report every incident, and encouraged residents to educate themselves amid the spread of false information online.

Vandalized sculpture intertwines Jewish, Philadelphian culture

The OY/YO sculpture, created by Jewish artist Deborah Kass, is made of aluminum and stands about eight feet tall and roughly 16 feet wide.

From one side, it reads “YO,” the greeting strongly associated with Philadelphia. From the other, it reads “OY,” the Yiddish exclamation that has also become embedded in American culture.

According to Kass, the work was intended to express the American promise of equality and the shared responsibility to fight hatred and division. The museum is located on Independence Mall, near Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell.

In August of last year, the museum’s facade and plaza, as well as a large Israeli flag above the words “Weitzman Stands With Israel,” were twice sprayed with red paint.

Leroy Hayes, 33, later turned himself in to police and was charged with an ethnic intimidation offense, criminal mischief, and possession of an instrument of crime.

This post was originally published on here. 

You almost have to pinch yourself watching what is unfolding between the United States and Iran.

US President Donald Trump entered this confrontation promising American dominance: that Iran would never obtain a nuclear weapon, its missile-production capability would be destroyed, and its support for terrorist proxies would be severed. 

America would no longer be threatened, extorted, or played.

After the first American attack, Trump had something concrete to show for those words: the US directly struck Iran’s nuclear facilities.

After America’s second bombing campaign, the question is far more uncomfortable: What exactly did America win?

Israel reportedly wanted to participate in the latest American strikes, but Washington did not want Israel involved. This became America’s operation, America’s targets, and America’s strategy.

That distinction matters.

Trump wanted America to take the lead. America took ownership.

Now America owns the outcome.

Iran’s regime survived. Its nuclear ambitions remain unresolved. Its missile and drone capabilities are being rebuilt. Russia and China remain sources of weapons, components, and assistance.

And now Iran has turned the Strait of Hormuz into leverage against the US. 

Washington is reportedly considering gradually releasing frozen Iranian funds and providing partial sanctions relief in return for Iran allowing unrestricted, toll-free commercial passage through Hormuz.

How did America get from Trump’s demands for Iranian surrender to negotiating what Tehran receives for reopening an international waterway?

Trump says America has “total control” of Hormuz. If America has total control, why is Iran setting the price?

That is what makes this so embarrassing for America – and particularly for a president whose global brand is strength.

The danger goes much further than appearances.

Trump’s own administration has argued that denying Iran revenue is essential because Tehran uses its resources for missiles, drones, the Revolutionary Guards, and terrorist proxies.

Loosening sanctions therefore doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

Money is fungible. Economic breathing room can free Iranian resources for rebuilding missiles, strengthening Hezbollah, supporting the Houthis and Hamas, restoring military infrastructure, and potentially advancing the nuclear capabilities America just went to war to stop.

America cannot spend billions destroying Iran’s military machine and then help create the financial conditions for Iran to rebuild it.

All because Iran disrupted Hormuz? That would send a catastrophic message far beyond Tehran.

And Hamas will be watching.

Trump created the Board of Peace and the International Stabilization Force for Gaza as part of his plan to end the Gaza conflict. 

The ISF is supposed to support Hamas’s disarmament, prevent terrorist infrastructure from being rebuilt, and help establish a new Palestinian police force.

What happens to the credibility of that structure if Hamas watches its patron Iran challenge America, disrupt international commerce, survive American bombing, and then potentially obtain financial concessions?

The lesson becomes dangerous:

Hold out long enough, create enough pressure, violate agreements, make the political cost painful enough, and eventually Washington may renegotiate.

That puts Israel’s immediate borders at risk – not merely from Iranian missiles hundreds of miles away, but from Hamas and other armed groups directly next door.

There is another regional development that deserves attention.

The Middle East around Israel is reorganizing

Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey all sit within Trump’s Board of Peace framework. Separately, Saudi Arabia has moved into a new defense arrangement with Turkey and Pakistan and is building broader regional security coalitions.

None of that automatically makes those countries enemies of Israel. Saudi Arabia has never been formally at war with Israel in the modern era, and Egypt has maintained its peace treaty with Israel for decades.

But something important has changed.

Countries Washington hoped would become pillars of a new regional order alongside Israel are increasingly coordinating among themselves, building independent security structures and pursuing interests that do not necessarily align with Jerusalem’s.

That was always the risk.

When these new structures were celebrated, the question should never have been simply whether Arab and Muslim countries were finally uniting.

The question was: Uniting around what – and ultimately, against whom?

What was presented as a framework that could surround Israel with stability can become something very different if Israel eventually feels surrounded by the framework itself.

Those concerns no longer look theoretical.

Israel increasingly finds itself questioning arrangements involving countries that were supposed to help guarantee its security, while Iran – the country America set out to weaken decisively – is demonstrating that it can still impose enormous costs on the region.

And Tehran understands the political clock.

A senior IRGC adviser has openly discussed prolonging the confrontation until Trump is gone.

Iran may have concluded that it does not need to defeat America militarily. It only needs to outlast Trump politically.

Which brings us to the midterms. Is Washington simply trying to get through November?

Reopen Hormuz. Stabilize oil prices. Remove Iran from the daily economic conversation. Replenish American weapons inventories. Get past the elections.

Then perhaps Trump returns to Iran with overwhelming pressure.

If that is the strategy, today’s moves may eventually make sense.

But Iran gets those same months. 

It can rebuild missiles, restore air defenses, receive Russian and Chinese equipment, strengthen proxies, repair military and nuclear infrastructure, and potentially do all of it with greater economic breathing room if Washington loosens sanctions.

That is the gamble.

Trump wanted to demonstrate American dominance without Israel participating in the second campaign.

Instead, America today appears to be negotiating with the country it bombed over what that country must receive to stop disrupting global commerce.

Maybe Trump has another card. Maybe this is a tactical pause before the real endgame.

For America’s sake, one hopes so.

Because Trump’s objectives were never merely to bomb Iran; they were to prevent a nuclear Iran, cripple its missile threat, cut its terrorist proxies off from Tehran, and restore American deterrence.

Those are the standards by which victory must be measured.

Not how many bombs America dropped. Not how many buildings were destroyed. And certainly not whether Iran temporarily agrees to reopen Hormuz after being economically rewarded for closing it.

America took ownership of this second campaign. Now it must show the world what it accomplished.

Because if Iran rebuilds, Hamas learns that agreements can be tested, America’s regional partners increasingly organize around their own interests, and Washington pays Tehran to unwind a crisis Tehran helped create. 

The message then being sent across the Middle East will be exactly opposite the one Trump intended.

And that leaves a question that would have seemed unimaginable when America’s second attack began: Is Trump defeated – and is Iran victorious?

The writer is founder and CEO of the Orthodox Jewish Chamber of Commerce.

This post was originally published on here.