Sunday, November 01, 2026
Saturday, October 31, 2026
ICE agent charged after ramming unmarked SUV into man in Texas
ICE agent charged after ramming unmarked SUV into man in Texas
“ICE agent Mario Alberto Morales was indicted for aggravated assault after ramming an unmarked SUV into Miguel Parra Hernandez in Houston. Harris County District Attorney Sean Teare questioned training and ICE conduct; ICE called the charge a political stunt.
Agent Mario Alberto Morales charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon over incident in Houston
A federal immigration agent who drove into and seriously injured a Texas man on 10 October after a botched traffic stop was indicted Friday on a charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
Mario Alberto Morales, 33, an agent with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), deliberately veered his SUV into Miguel Parra Hernandez, 48, causing multiple leg fractures and a hip injury, journalists at a news conference in Houston were told.
In announcing the charge against Morales, Harris county district attorney Sean Teare questioned the training that Morales, a recent appointment by ICE, had received – and denounced the activities and conduct of the agency in support of the frequently violent immigration crackdown during Donald Trump’s second presidency.
His office is also investigating the fatal shooting by ICE in Houston in July of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, an immigrant who, like Parra Hernandez, was not the intended target of an enforcement operation.
Friday’s indictment came little more than five months after Christian Castro, an ICE officer who shot and wounded a Venezuelan man in an operation in Minnesota in January, was charged with assault and falsely reporting a crime.
“Their behavior and the fear that’s being instilled in such a big, vibrant group of people, of Harris county residents, is objectively making us all less safe,” Teare told reporters, citing what he said was a documented drop-off in reports of domestic violence, aggravated robberies and sexual assaults by victims who feared deportation.
“One of the most insidious things about these tactics and the way that ICE is behaving in our community is the fear that a large percentage of our population has right now. An ICE badge does not give you free rein to injure, kill, or violate the constitutional rights of anyone.”
A grand jury empanelled to investigate the case involving Morales returned the indictment on Friday morning after hearing evidence that Teare said was “as clear as any that I’ve ever prosecuted or investigated”.
Morales was driving an unmarked Jeep Cherokee and attempted to stop a pickup truck containing two men who jumped out and fled. Surveillance video played at the news conference showed Parra Hernandez, a Mexican construction worker with no criminal record or active deportation order, running across a restaurant parking lot when the pursuing SUV swerved into him and ran him over.
In an audio recording of a 911 call Morales made requesting the assistance of paramedics and the Harris county sheriff’s office, he is heard telling the dispatcher that Parra Hernandez ran in front of his vehicle and was hit, an assertion repeated in an official ICE account of the case released the following day.
In a statement on Friday, an ICE spokesperson said: “Allegations that ICE struck Miguel Parra Hernandez intentionally are reckless and false. The men and women of ICE are entrusted with upholding the rule of law and are held to the highest standards of professionalism, integrity, and ethical conduct.”
The spokesperson said the indictment was “nothing more than a political stunt by Houston sanctuary politicians”, using a term meant to describe local officials who don’t cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
“Federal officers acting in the course of their duties can only be investigated by other federal agencies,” the spokesperson also said. “Local governments do not have the authority to run such an investigation.”
Harris county sheriff Ed Gonzalez told the press conference his investigators later found out that, at the time it struck Parra Hernandez, Morales’s SUV also contained two handcuffed detainees from a previous, unrelated operation.
“I know of no law enforcement agency that would deem that to be acceptable,” he said. “To the contrary, it’s very unsafe. If some other crash could have occurred with them being handcuffed and shackled inside the vehicle it would have been a maybe even worse situation because they were very limited in their movement and in the backseat of the vehicle.”
Teare said that ICE deported at least two “material witnesses” within a week of Parra being struck over the prosecutor’s objection and with no opportunity to interview them. Parra Hernandez, he said, “is not even able to leave the rehab facility, and they are having court dates to try to deport him”.
The district attorney said he had collected “a significant amount of information” on Morales’s background – and said he was hired by ICE in August 2025 as part of the agency’s aggressive immigration “surge” into a number of US cities.
He declined to give details of any previous employers and said he had not received any of Morales’s training records.
“Whether or not he has those, we don’t know, but I can unequivocally tell you that I’ve reviewed thousands of job applications and resumes for law enforcement officers from around this state, and I’m not familiar with a single agency that would have hired this person based on his past,” Teare said.
Lawyers for Parra Hernandez, who remains in ICE custody, have said he would need numerous operations to recover from his injuries.
The whereabouts of the person that ICE said it was pursuing when Parra Hernandez was hurt are unknown. The agency identified a man named Jose Mendoza-Cervantes as their target, and released an image of someone they said was him.
The person in the photo, however, was Jose Hector Jimenez, who died in 2017 while being pursued by federal immigration authorities as he was trying to re-enter the US, said the Houston-based immigration advocacy group FIEL, which produced a Mexican death certificate provided by his family.“
Obamacare Dealt Yet Another Blow as Premiums Jump Again
Obamacare Dealt Yet Another Blow as Premiums Jump Again
“Obamacare premiums will rise an average 13 percent in 2027, per KFF analysis. The Trump administration cited fraud in canceling coverage for 750,000 people and issued $500 checks. Enrollment fell nearly five million; some may go uninsured.
Premiums will increase an average 13 percent next year for millions of Americans, on top of an earlier steep increase. It adds to the problems facing the program, which the Trump administration has weakened.
Millions of Americans who depend on Obamacare for their health insurance face another double-digit price increase next year, adding to the financial toll that has already driven millions of others to drop coverage since last year.
The price increases largely reflect higher medical costs across the country. But they also are a signal of the latest blow to Obamacare under the Trump administration, which has overseen the expiration of tax credits that helped Americans pay for coverage and has erected new barriers to enrollment in an effort to root out what it describes as widespread fraud.
The average price of health insurance in the Obamacare marketplaces will rise by 13 percent next year, according to an analysis on Friday by KFF, the health research group.
The Trump administration on Friday published new prices for 2027 in 30 states with markets managed by the federal government. Using that data and state figures, KFF calculated the increase nationwide.
The large premium increases for Obamacare plans are similar to changes expected in other health insurance markets, though slightly higher. Reports by several consulting firms projected that premiums for employer plans, which cover around 150 million people, could go up by about 10 percent in 2027. Premiums for federal workers are increasing by more than 10 percent.
Public opinion polls have shown that the cost of health care has been among voters’ top economic concerns going into the midterm elections on Tuesday. In a recent poll from KFF, about 60 percent of registered voters said they were worried about being able to afford health care for themselves and their families.
Kate and Mark Dwyer, a couple in rural Oregon, have been wrestling with whether their budget can handle another annual increase. They had already shifted to the cheapest available Obamacare plan, leaving them on the hook for thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs.
Next year, the least expensive plan will increase their costs by more than $500 a month, to nearly $3,000, Ms. Dwyer said. That amounts to more than a third of her earnings at a nonprofit.
“We are looking at going without next year,” Ms. Dwyer said. “There is no middle ground. It’s either $3,000 or nothing.”
In an apparent nod to such concerns, the Trump administration sent many Obamacare customers $500 checks this month to offset their insurance premiums — a one-time payment just before the election.
Across the private and public health sectors, the increases have been driven by rising hospital prices, high payments under a consumer protection law that changed how some doctors are compensated, and the growing use of artificial intelligence in doctors’ offices, according to benefits consultants and industry analysts. Several large employers also pointed to a rising bill for expensive specialty prescriptions, like cancer drugs and GLP-1 medicines.
The Trump administration released the numbers quietly on Friday afternoon as a data file. A government fact sheet about open enrollment published shortly afterward did not mention the premium increase, but noted that three-quarters of Obamacare customers with subsidies can still find plans for less than $50 a month.
Open enrollment and shopping for plans begins Sunday, just two days before the midterm elections, in which affordability and the higher prices for groceries, gasoline and health care have been a central issue.
Although the federal government reported that 19.2 million people were enrolled in Obamacare coverage early this year, more recent estimates indicate a lower total.
Roughly 10 percent are older consumers who earned more than $63,840, a group largely composed of self-employed workers, such as chiropractors, dentists, ranchers and farmers, as well as many early retirees. Many already faced premium increases exceeding $1,000 a month in 2026.
“This is a really small number of people,” said Cynthia Cox, the director of KFF’s program on the Affordable Care Act. “But these people are getting hit the hardest by rising health care costs, and they don’t get any help.”
The average cost for the cheapest bronze plan with a high deductible will be about $700 a month for a 50-year-old single person, according to Ms. Cox.
Obamacare customers who earn less than $64,000 a year make up most of the people enrolled in the program and will still benefit from income-based subsidies and will not have to pay higher out-of-pocket premium costs next year. For those people, taxpayer dollars will cover the extra cost.
But many with strained household budgets are struggling to pay their portion since their Obamacare premiums went up in 2026, and many have been forced to switch to plans with higher deductibles.
In 2026, premiums rose by an average of 26 percent, with the cost for all consumers more than doubling on average for the same plan, after the Republican-led Congress decided to let temporary federal subsidies expire.
Recent estimates from KFF, based on insurance filings with regulators, suggest that enrollment fell by nearly five million people, as of June.
A recent large survey released by the Commonwealth Fund, a foundation and research group that supports the Affordable Care Act, found the uninsured rate among working-age adults had risen since two years ago.
Democrats forced a record 43-day government shutdown last year, as they tried to leverage government funding on an extension of the subsidies or health care tax credits. Aides to the House minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, a Democrat from New York, have said he will schedule a vote to restore the extra subsidies in the first days of the next Congress if Democrats win a majority in the midterm elections.
The data on premium costs were published on Friday just before the start of next year’s enrollment period, which runs from Nov. 1 to Jan. 15. People in most states who want to buy Obamacare insurance for next year need to sign up during that period. (A handful of states keep the enrollment period open longer.)
Increases for consumers who renew their current plans could be higher than the average increase.
“We really do encourage people to shop and compare” among the plans they are offered, said Anthony Wright, the executive director for Families USA, a left-leaning consumer advocacy group. The average price increase can mask tremendous variation in the cost of a policy, he said.
To lower the cost of coverage, many people switched from more comprehensive plans to so-called bronze coverage this year, which often offers lower premiums and much higher deductibles. The average A.C.A. deductible rose to a record high of nearly $4,000 in 2026. As they consider plans for next year, those people may no longer be able to avoid a price increase by switching to a skimpier plan.
Caroline Pearson, the executive director at the Peterson Center on Healthcare, a group focused on lowering health care spending, said she had been watching the market closely for signs of instability, given last year’s big price shock. But she described the newly published increase as “consistent with the rate increases we are expecting” for employers and their workers.
But few people covered by an employer health plan are exposed to the full cost of insurance like unsubsidized Obamacare consumers. Employers pick up more than half of the tab for the typical person in work-based coverage, and such insurance premiums are deductible from people’s taxes.
Administration officials attribute some of that drop-off to its efforts to reduce fraudulent enrollment, arguing that brokers had enrolled fake consumers in subsidized coverage.
In September, Vice President JD Vance announced the government had canceled coverage that he said brokers arranged for about 750,000 people whose records lacked Social Security numbers and who had not used or contacted their health insurer through August. He and other administration officials argued there was evidence of additional fraud.
But the Commonwealth survey suggests that some people who have dropped Obamacare coverage may now be going without any health insurance.
Reed Abelson covers the business of health care, focusing on how financial incentives are affecting the delivery of care, from the costs to consumers to the profits to providers.
Margot Sanger-Katz is a reporter covering health care policy and public health for the Upshot“
Thursday, October 29, 2026
Judge Orders Trump Officials to Outline Election Demands Sent to States
Judge Orders Trump Officials to Outline Election Demands Sent to States
“Judge Boasberg ordered the Trump administration to disclose by Friday which states received letters demanding ballot scrutiny; he may block the effort by Nov. 3. The Justice Department claims states may ignore the letters.
A federal judge gave the government until noon on Friday to share which states had received letters trying to enlist them in an effort to find evidence of voter fraud.
A federal judge on Thursday ordered the Trump administration to provide a list of states it targeted with demands that state and local officials change how they will administer the midterm election, including that they set aside specific ballots for extra scrutiny.
The order from Chief Judge James E. Boasberg in Federal District Court in Washington could provide new transparency into the Trump administration’s efforts to pressure local officials ahead of next week’s election.
It came in a lawsuit brought by a broad coalition of Democratic politicians and party organizations that is seeking a court order prohibiting the Trump administration from interfering in election administration.
The Justice Department has sent letters to California and Washington Stateasking them to impound ballots sent from voters the department said it had reason to believe were noncitizens. The states said that the lists provided by the government were riddled with errors and that the Constitution gives states — not the federal government — the power to administer elections.
Uzoma Nkem Nkwonta, a lawyer representing the Democratic coalition, said the groups were concerned that the Trump administration had potentially sent similar letters to more states and local officials than it had publicly revealed.
While judges have so far declined to order states to turn over voter data to the administration or to segregate ballots, officials in other states may have quietly complied, he argued.
At a hearing, Judge Boasberg said he planned to decide whether to block the Trump administration’s efforts by Nov. 3.
But he said that information he asked the administration to produce by noon on Friday would help him determine the extent of the federal government’s efforts and whether he had reason to intervene.
Judge Boasberg asked the Justice Department to produce any communication with state or local election officials that directed them to remove registered voters from state rolls, to refuse to issue ballots to specific registered voters, or to set aside “or otherwise not count and tabulate” votes cast by specific individuals.
He told Christian Dibblee, a Justice Department lawyer, that the Trump administration could short circuit the inquiry at any time by promising the government would not order any additional states to change their ballot processing in the coming days.
“You can moot all of this by saying, ‘We’re not intending to do this in the next five days before the election,’” Judge Boasberg said. “But if you don’t, then I’ll issue an opinion by Monday.”
Mr. Dibblee told Judge Boasberg that, in the federal government’s view, states were generally free to ignore letters that had come from the Justice or Homeland Security Departments. The assertion prompted surprise from the judge.
“We stand by the assertion that these letters do not require states to do anything,” Mr. Dibblee said. “The states have their own independent agency on how they are going to respond to those to these letters.”
“Isn’t the language in these letters a little stronger than that?” Judge Boasberg said. “Are you saying they’re more like a suggestion or just kind of a notice of ‘just wanted to let you know, you might want to be aware of this?’” he asked.
Mr. Dibblee said that receiving a letter “does not imply that the recipient is, ipso facto, violating a law” and that the Trump administration had gone to court in cases such as California to let a federal judge “make that determination.”
A letter sent last week to election officials across the state said they would “risk significant federal scrutiny” if they failed to comply with the Justice Department demands. The New York Times reported on Thursday that the government had also issued subpoenas to local election officials, asking them to appear before federal grand juries next week to provide evidence about the state’s procedures for screening noncitizen voters.
In the letters sent to states thus far, the Trump administration has raised dubious claims about thousands of “likely noncitizens” being registered to vote, with accompanying demands that state officials set aside ballots from anyone flagged by the government. When state officials have tried to verify the claims using data provided by the federal government, they have repeatedly found inconsistencies and lawful citizens being falsely implicated.
The coalition had argued that the letters and related efforts amounted to intimidation, and could lead to anxious officials agreeing to disenfranchise lawful voters.
Even so, Mr. Dibblee insisted that the Trump administration was not forcing state and local officials — even any who may have already accepted its demands — to disqualify voters. Even if states comply, he said, “each state is going to have its own independent agency for how to go about confirming the citizenship of these ballots.”
Zach Montague is a Times reporter covering the federal courts, including the legal disputes over the Trump administration’s agenda.“
Tuesday, October 27, 2026
White House Has Tight Grip Over FBI in Pursuing Trump Targets, Agent Says
White House Has Tight Grip Over FBI in Pursuing Trump Targets, Agent Says
“Agent Bryan Witt testified that FBI director Kash Patel ordered investigations into Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides following President Trump’s directives. Witt called the inquiry a “witch hunt,” noting Patel’s aggressive oversight. Judge Zia M. Faruqui criticized the Justice Department’s unprecedented amended complaint.
White House Has Tight Grip Over F.B.I. in Pursuing Trump Targets, Agent Says
In court testimony, the agent outlined the willingness of Kash Patel, the F.B.I. director, to take orders from President Trump to investigate his perceived enemies.
By Alan Feuer
Reporting from the Federal District Court in Washington
In mid-July, President Trump gave a prime-time speech in which he raised concerns about a disputed F.B.I. report that China had tried to interfere in the 2020 election in an effort to defeat him.
At the heart of his address was a bitter complaint: that some of the bureau’s intelligence officials had purposefully sought to play down the report to undercut his claims about the race.
One day after Mr. Trump attacked those officials on TV, calling for their prosecution, Kash Patel, the F.B.I. director, sent a letter to the U.S. attorney’s office in Kansas City ordering that some of them immediately be investigated for obstruction and conspiracy, one of the agents assigned to the case testified on Tuesday.
The agent, Bryan Witt, said that even though the inquiry was generally viewed inside his office as a “witch hunt” and that he himself had concerns it was “political,” it nonetheless moved forward. And last week, one of the intelligence officials whom Mr. Trump had complained about was charged along with a colleague with lying to Congress about the roles they had played in another one of the president’s longstanding obsessions: the investigations into Hunter Biden, the former president’s son.
Mr. Witt’s explosive testimony, offered at a hearing in Federal District Court in Washington, was the latest account of just how tight a grip the White House has on decision-making at the F.B.I. and just how willing Mr. Patel has been to take orders from the president to go after people he believes to be enemies.
A veteran agent, Mr. Witt asserted from the stand that he had never before worked on a case where instructions came directly from the F.B.I.’s director. He added that Mr. Patel and his deputies often checked on his progress, pressing him and his colleagues to move as aggressively as possible.
The daylong hearing was nominally held so that lawyers for the two defendants — Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides — could question the basis of the criminal complaint that was filed on Friday. It accused them of lying to the House Judiciary Committee in 2023 when they were questioned about the roles they had played in the F.B.I.’s investigations into Mr. Biden and his ties to foreign nationals and companies.
But as the day went on, the proceeding gradually turned into something more substantial as the lawyers got Mr. Witt to expose the ways in which Mr. Trump had directed Mr. Patel to use the power of the F.B.I. to investigate people he believed had cast doubts on both his lies about the 2020 election and his unsubstantiated claims that his opponent in that race, Joseph R. Biden Jr., had engaged in corrupt dealings in Ukraine while Hunter Biden had been working there.
Mr. Witt testified that he was originally instructed by Mr. Patel to investigate Ms. Floris and other F.B.I. intelligence officials after they had questioned a report from an informant developed by the bureau’s Albany field office that China had sought to tip the 2020 election in Mr. Biden’s favor.
But after he and his colleagues were unable to find evidence to support the claims, he said the inquiry quickly pivoted toward the testimony that Ms. Floris and Mr. Benavides had given three years ago in front of the House committee, which had been looking into Hunter Biden’s business dealings overseas.
Both Ms. Floris and Mr. Benavides served on the F.B.I.’s Foreign Influence Task Force, a group created after Russia interfered in the 2016 election. It helped intelligence agencies monitor clandestine efforts by foreign governments to manipulate American politics, including by issuing warnings about covert foreign meddling to politicians and social media companies.
Members of the task force had relayed warnings from the intelligence community about a covert Russian disinformation operation aimed at helping Mr. Trump win re-election in 2020 by amplifying claims that the elder Mr. Biden had engaged in corrupt dealings in Ukraine, where his son held a board seat on an energy firm, Burisma.
The case against Ms. Floris and Mr. Benavides is largely based on discrepancies between what they told Congress about their participation in the Biden investigations, what witnesses have said and what documents emerging from the inquiries have shown. Their lawyers spent much of Tuesday trying to persuade the magistrate judge handling the case, Zia M. Faruqui, that their clients had not lied to Congress and that the statements they had made had not materially affected the work of the House committee.
From the start, the prosecution has been marked by a series of unusual procedural maneuvers — including the fact that Ms. Floris and Mr. Benavides were charged in a criminal complaint, not an indictment. Complaints are typically used when prosecutors need to act quickly or have fears that defendants might flee. But Judge Faruqui said in court on Tuesday that both of the defendants are well-respected former agents and that the underlying facts of the case are more than three years old.
Judge Faruqui also expressed concern about another unorthodox tactic the Justice Department has used in the case. Late Monday night, prosecutors filed an amended complaint, adding a new charge of obstruction of Congress. But in an extraordinary break from standard legal practice, the prosecutors issued the new complaint without first seeking judicial approval, effectively asserting that they could accuse the defendants of additional crimes without the traditional checks and balances.
One of the prosecutors on the case, John Borchert, acknowledged it was a “novel” move to seek a criminal charge without first getting the approval of a jurist or grand jury. But Judge Faruqui said it was far more serious than that.
“It’s not just novel, Mr. Borchert,” he said. “It’s never been done before.”
Monday, October 26, 2026
Netanyahu Pushed for Attack on Iran Ahead of Israeli Election, Officials Say - The New York Times
Netanyahu Pushed for Attack on Iran Ahead of Israeli Election, Officials Say
"Israel’s military chief resisted the prime minister, who then pressed in recent days for a separate action, short of an overt strike, according to an official and a person briefed on the matter.
In advance of Israel’s pivotal election on Tuesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sought for weeks to orchestrate a new airstrike on Iran but ran into resistance from the military’s chief of staff, according to three senior Israeli defense officials and three other people briefed on the matter.
Then, over the past few days, the chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, became concerned that Mr. Netanyahu had begun pushing for a separate action against Iran, short of an overt strike, according to an Israeli official and a person briefed on the matter, neither of whom described the nature of such an action. General Zamir believed that this would be a miscalculation that could provoke Iran into attacking Israel.
Spokesmen for Mr. Netanyahu did not respond immediately to requests for comment.
The Israeli officials and the people briefed on the deliberations spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
Mr. Netanyahu’s rationale for pressing to attack Iran before the election was not clear, but a return to war could have potentially disrupted or even delayed the vote.
The behind-the-scenes tensions over a possible Israeli attack or other action against Iran come as Mr. Netanyahu has been publicly portraying the stakes of the election in increasingly apocalyptic terms. Over the weekend, he posted an A.I.-generated image on social media of a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv and warned in a television appearance that the vote would decide “Israel’s existence.”
The appeals to Israelis’ fears are meant to get voters to see the conflict with Iran as the most urgent issue and to entrust him with continuing to lead the struggle against Israel’s chief regional adversary.
When Mr. Netanyahu pushed to heat up the conflict with Iran, General Zamir raised a number of objections and concerns and ultimately concluded that there was no immediate or urgent need for action, the officials and people briefed on the matter said.
Such a determination by the military chief carries special weight: It can make it harder to portray the timing as a military necessity.
While General Zamir was not opposed to taking action against Iran in principle, he objected to doing so before the election, according to an Israeli official and two people briefed on the matter. General Zamir and the Israeli air force commander, Maj. Gen. Omer Tischler, cited the political sensitivities and the difficulty of explaining to the public why it had to occur then, according to two senior Israeli defense officials.
In a statement, the Israeli military said its operational decision making was strictly based “on security considerations,” as well as “its responsibility as a national institution.”
The concerns about political motivations for an attack on Iran do not expire on Tuesday. According to three senior Israeli defense officials and two people briefed on the matter, a resumption of fighting with Iran in the weeks after the election could also have a large impact.
If Mr. Netanyahu’s opponents prevail in the election, they would likely have an opportunity to form the new government, but a return to war could hinder or even thwart their ability to assemble a governing coalition within the time allotted by law. Renewed fighting could also create political pressure to establish a national unity government that includes Mr. Netanyahu.
Reports of disagreement between Mr. Netanyahu and the military over a possible attack, first carried by Israel’s Channel 12, sparked outrage in Israel. One of Mr. Netanyahu’s rivals, Avigdor Liberman, demanded Monday that the attorney general open an investigation into whether the prime minister had committed treason.
“The attempt to drag Israel into a war on the eve of elections, including sacrificing Israeli soldiers, just because of the fear of losing the elections, is a betrayal of the nation,” Mr. Liberman, a defense minister and foreign minister in earlier Netanyahu governments, wrote in a formal complaint.
Mr. Netanyahu, 77, is battling to keep his hold on power in the face of opposition led by Gadi Eisenkot, a former military chief of staff.
Mr. Netanyahu’s appeals to voters became increasingly disturbing over the campaign’s final weekend, with the prime minister saying that his defeat could lead to Israel’s annihilation. He has also suggested that tougher times could be ahead for Israel regardless of the outcome.
On Friday, he said that Israelis should prepare for the end of billions of dollars in American military support from the United States, given the sharp decline of Israel’s standing in U.S. public opinion. He also said the possibility that Israel will face “banking sanctions” arising from international condemnation could force the country in coming years to rely on cryptocurrency to circumvent the penalties.
The remarks prompted a wave of criticism. Israel’s nonpartisan central bank, the Bank of Israel, issued a rare warning, saying that cryptocurrency would not save the economy in the event of international sanctions. And a former governor of the Bank of Israel, Jacob Frenkel, said that turning away from the global financial system would make Israel into “a leper.”
Opposition leaders accused Mr. Netanyahu of essentially accepting that Israel would become a pariah state.
“He’s lost it,” said Yair Lapid, one of Mr. Netanyahu’s centrist rivals. “Israel’s prime minister, in an election campaign, is saying three days before the elections to vote for him and he’ll ensure that Israel stays isolated.”
For weeks, Mr. Netanyahu has also been saying that Iran might attack Israel in an attempt to sabotage the elections — statements that some military analysts consider destabilizing. His messaging became even more dire over the weekend.
On Sunday morning, Mr. Netanyahu posted the image of an A.I.-generated cloud from a nuclear blast mushrooming over Tel Aviv, Israel’s biggest metropolis. He attached a quote from a supporter to the effect that the scandals dogging him — he is currently facing trial on corruption charges, which he denies — were a distraction from “the real and tangible existential danger” that Iran posed.
Iran denies that it is pursuing a nuclear weapon but has also repeatedly threatened Israel, which is widely believed to have its own nuclear arsenal.
Hours later, Mr. Netanyahu gave one of the final interviews of his election campaign to Israel’s Channel 14, a network that largely echoes the prime minister’s talking points. He warned that his right-wing bloc was facing possible defeat.
“It’s not in our pocket and it’s not a lost cause,” Mr. Netanyahu said.
The prime minister warned that Israel was at risk of joining the ranks of countries like Belgium, Britain and France that, he said, have been “ruined” by an alliance between “the left and radical Islam.”
Rising to his feet, Mr. Netanyahu likened himself to a Jewish leader warning 1930s European Jewry of the impending Holocaust. Mr. Netanyahu said Mr. Eisenkot and his allies would not do what was necessary and vowed to destroy Iran’s nuclear program and topple its government.
Mr. Netanyahu has repeatedly boasted of having destroyed the Iranian nuclear program, only to speak of it as if it remains an imminent threat. “We cannot live side by side with this bomb,” he said. “Either they will either destroy us or we will destroy that poisonous cult.”
Mr. Netanyahu’s opponents also believe the future of their country is hanging in the balance on Tuesday. Many liberal Israelis fear that this election is their last chance to prevent their country from becoming an authoritarian state, under the sway of the religious right and shunned on the world stage.
On Sunday evening, Mr. Eisenkot made his own final pitch to voters, calling for the country to come together “to save our Israel.” He vowed to order an inquiry into the government’s failure to prevent the Hamas-led attack against Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, uproot Hamas’s rule in Gaza within 18 months and force Mr. Netanyahu’s ultra-Orthodox Jewish allies, now exempted from military service, to share the burden of conscription.
“At stake in the elections is nothing less than the security of Israel and the survival of the Israeli story as we know it,” Mr. Eisenkot said.
David M. Halbfinger is The Times’s Jerusalem bureau chief, leading coverage of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. He also held that post from 2017 to 2021. He was the politics editor from 2021 to 2025.
Ronen Bergman is a staff writer for The New York Times Magazine, based in Tel Aviv.
Natan Odenheimer is a Times reporter in Jerusalem, covering Israeli and Palestinian affairs.
Adam Rasgon is a reporter for The Times in Jerusalem, covering Israeli and Palestinian affairs.
Aaron Boxerman is a Times reporter covering Israel and Gaza. He is based in Jerusalem.
See more on: Benjamin Netanyahu"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)