Israel

As the dust settles on the 2026 US midterm elections, two facts are clear: First, the Democrats have achieved a historic victory – and second, Donald Trump remains president for the coming two years.

That means Congressional Democrats will have three legislative lanes to pursue: The first is constraining Trump. This includes doing what they can through Congress to bring the Iran war to a conclusion, blocking many of his nominations, particularly to the judiciary, ending ICE’s aggressive immigrant detentions, and pursuing oversight of Trump and his allies’ financial networks and alleged corruption.

The second lane will be about demonstrating a positive policy agenda to inform the 2028 cycle, when Trump will be off the ballot. This is more about “messaging bills” focused on social issues, but could also include economic measures such as tax reform proposals, as well as significant reforms of US global defence cooperation authorities and shifts to major foreign policy questions, such as aid to Israel.

The final lane will be that – perhaps narrow – set of issues where bipartisanship and cooperation with the White House is possible. Putting guardrails around America’s burgeoning artificial intelligence (AI) sector may fit in that box, although some of Trump’s biggest funders are likely to do what they can to derail progress.

Many of the bills that will be put forward in the first and second lanes would be subject to presidential veto. Others will be toned down, as the Democratic establishment seeks to resist the progressive left’s ambitious agenda. These dynamics are likely to make the upcoming Congress less productive.

On foreign policy, in particular, Congress is able to pass just a slim set of acts without presidential endorsement, such as war powers legislation, limiting the president’s ability to wage war without Congressional approval; or measures like the recent Senate resolution advanced by Maryland Democrat Chris Van Hollen to demand reporting on Israel’s human rights record; or committee subpoenas, which can be used to investigate members of the Trump administration for wrongdoing. But they are likely to be ignored or stonewalled by the White House, leading to months, if not years, of fruitless litigation.

That is not to say that introducing “stand-alone” bills on issues, such as arms transfers to Israel, would not be important even if blocked by the president. They remain useful both for framing the conversation and for getting members of Congress on the record and establishing consensus positions.

In the Senate, where several incumbents are likely to throw their hats into the upcoming presidential nomination contest, such bills could be used to highlight the progressive credentials of some candidates – or to force more conservative members into awkward positions. That might ultimately make a difference in terms of the framing and debate for the 2028 election – and a potential Democratic administration thereafter. But it will not change anything in the immediate term.

There are at least three tools available to legislators where a fierce – and perhaps impactful – debate is likely to play out. The first is that enabled by Congress’ constitutional “power of the purse”.  If the current Republican majorities do not manage to pass an annual funding bill by the end of this calendar year, the Democrats will have both the current year and the next two years of US government funding under their control.

This includes, of course, Israel’s annual allocation of $3.3bn, which Trump himself put into doubt in a surprising and as yet unclarified statement on election day. If nothing else, the president’s call for an end to security assistance to Israel may accelerate what would likely have been a steady reduction under Democratic leadership.

The new Congress will also be able to reconsider a range of funding restrictions and requirements, such as the prohibition on funding the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA), or the limitations on funding the Palestinian Authority.

Passing such bills will not be simply a matter of partisan rancour — we can expect some pretty tough battles to play out within the Democratic caucus itself on some of these issues. Then it is another matter of whether the Trump administration adheres to the law with the funding it ultimately receives.

The second area to watch is that of oversight. With the majority in hand, Democrats in the House and Senate can set the agenda – deciding which actions by the Trump administration are ripe for investigation, identifying witnesses, and using the committee gavels to drive the public debate.

Party leadership will be eager to focus on the issues that are most damaging to the current administration and its likely candidates for succession, such as Vice President JD Vance or Secretary of State Marco Rubio, while being least disruptive to party unity.

And because the system relies on seniority, control of the agenda of Congressional committees that can investigate the government would rest with Democratic establishment members who would be less likely than their newer or younger peers to be critical of the US-Israel relationship.

That said, it is hard to imagine a Democratic Congress that does not at least conduct oversight of Trump’s Board of Peace and its opaque sources of funding and influence. Another likely topic is the question of US involvement in the current war with Iran.

What the Democrats choose not to pursue via oversight will also be important: The weaponisation of anti-Semitism by the current and previous Congress to attack the US education sector and civil society should come to an end under the next Congress. Though certainly Democratic leadership will be keen to find ways to demonstrate that they still care about genuine concerns from the Jewish community, one would hope that these are pursued with a more concrete grounding in reality and shared security than as a tool for repressing pro-Palestinian speech.

But many in the Democratic base would like to see the party do much more – including holding hearings into the US role in enabling Israel’s genocide in Gaza, a topic that would ensnare senior officials from the Biden administration in a very public accounting that the establishment is keen to avoid.

Here is where the details of the outcome of the midterms will truly matter. While there is no doubt that the centre point of the Democratic Congressional caucus has shifted to the left for the upcoming 120th Congress, particularly in the House, the size of the majority matters.

As recent Republican Houses have demonstrated, a small majority is a challenge for the speaker, as it empowers a small group of members to exert significant leverage through the threat of withdrawal of their support for basic procedural steps that are typically decided on a partisan vote basis.

As a result of the midterms “blue tsunami”, however, the Democratic majority is secure enough that leadership will have to make few real concessions to the left of their party, likely teeing up some tense, and almost inevitably public, tussling in the coming two years, particularly when it comes to appropriations bills.

In short, the Democrats’ campaign for legislative power has been a success, but particularly in the face of an imperious White House that has shown little interest in even longstanding legal precedent in its deference to Congress, it remains incomplete.

At the same time, being the party locked out of power has enabled the Democrats up to this point to dodge some degree of the internal wrangling that is already long overdue on key issues, such as foreign policy on Israel.

A majority in Congress may not give them complete control – but it does mean they will now own the legislative branch’s decisions. Whether they demonstrate a meaningful and proactive shift – or let themselves be constrained by establishment conservatism – may define the viability of their path to further electoral success in 2028.

Either way, the American people will be watching what Democrats do and do not do – as will the Republicans who, as Trump enters his “lame duck” years, are likely to undergo an evolution of their own on these key issues.

This makes progress in the coming Congress all the more acute an issue for the Democrats. The challenge for them is simple: take credible leadership on driving change or face the very real possibility of being outflanked by the “America First” right.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Vance cited trusted pollster saying Iran war, Israel ties were top of mind for Trump voters swinging to Democrats.

Vice President JD Vance has blamed the war on Iran for his party’s withering midterms defeat, suggesting that the conflict may not have been worth ceding control of the US Congress to Democrats.

“The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night,” he wrote in a lengthy post on X. “If you’d like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so.”

“Everyone knows why we lost. And any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there.”

Vance, a likely 2028 presidential candidate and heir apparent to Trump’s Make America Great Again movement, has been a key negotiator with Iran as the two countries search for a way out of the conflict, which has dented their economies and pushed global fuel prices up.

His statements on Tehran have been more dovish than those of other key members of the administration, and his post-election note appears to mark the closest he has yet come to publicly diverging from his boss on an issue that looks set to dog Republicans as the war continues.

Citing a pollster he describes as “one of the smartest people I know”, Vance said he was told ending the Iran war and “changing our relationship with Israel” were two of the top four answers given by Americans surveyed who had voted for Trump in 2024 but were planning to vote for Democrats in the 2026 midterms.

In stark contrast, Trump said, in the wake of the rebuke at the ballot box, that he had no regrets about launching the conflict.

“I did the right thing. I would have done it again,” he told the Wall Street Journal.

By the end of the year, the U.S. will stop providing Israel with billions of dollars in annual assistance, President Donald Trump proclaimed Tuesday morning. The announcement was delivered as both Washington and Jerusalem are mulling plans for a new wave of attacks on Iran and amid increasing American voter antipathy toward the Israel in the wake of the Gaza war and America’s involvement in the war with Iran.

While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu has openly discussed weaning his country off direct U.S. assistance in favor of more cooperation on weapons development, the Trump announcement still caught many there by surprise. It also raises a lot of questions about Congressional authorization and the impact on future sales of advanced arms from U.S. manufacturers, many of which are planned, that still have to be answered.

“As far as paying Israel, Bibi Netanyahu and I have made a deal that – we give Israel $4 billion a year – and we made a deal months ago that we’re stopping,” Trump told Fox & Friends Tuesday morning during his message to American voters going to the polls for the midterm election. “And they’re fine with it because you know they have become a very successful country. They don’t need it, and we won’t be paying anymore to Israel, so it’s just a wasted thing because we’ve already agreed that by the end of this year we won’t be paying Israel.”

“Now we’ll help Israel if they need it,” the American leader added. “You know they’ve been a great ally, and we’ve been the greatest of all allies to many many countries.”

Trump did not elaborate on what specific expenditures he was referring to, and we’ve reached out to the White House for more details. However, the president was almost certainly talking about the ongoing decade-long Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Israel.

The MoU calls for providing $3.8 billion in annual aid and it is drawing to a close. Set to run through 2028, the vast majority of that funding is for Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to purchase weaponry mostly from American manufacturers.

“In 2016, the U.S. and Israeli governments signed their third 10-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on military aid, covering [Fiscal Year] 2019 to [Fiscal Year] 2028,” according to a 2025 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report. “Under the terms of the MOU, the United States pledged to provide—subject to congressional appropriation—$38 billion in military aid ($33 billion in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) grants plus $5 billion in missile defense appropriations) to Israel.”

The MoU is merely a promise and not legally binding. Congress has to approve any funding requests.

A New Deal

Washington and Jerusalem began negotiating a new MoU in June, according to the Israeli Defense Ministry (MoD).

“The new framework, reflecting the strategic vision of Israel’s Prime Minister and Minister of Defense, is designed to strengthen the IDF’s qualitative military edge through expanded joint investment in research, development, and co-production, deepen the U.S.-Israel partnership demonstrated during Operation Roaring Lion, and gradually transition from aid to a completely reciprocal partnership,” MoD explained.

Netanyahu has been warning Israel for months that it would have to face reduced assistance from the U.S.

“If you think we will continue receiving what I secured twice — tens of billions of dollars in American aid for the defense budget — you’d better prepare yourselves and get used to the idea that this will not continue,” he told Israeli media last month, according to Bloomberg News. “That is because America has changed, not because Israel has changed. It will end. It is only a matter of time.”

Netanyahu added that Israel has two more years with Trump, but must prepare for a less favorable Washington after he leaves power.

In January, the Israeli leader said he wanted to reduce Israel’s reliance on American aid. He told The Economist that he was not seeking the full renewal of the MoU, which has to be renegotiated by 2028. 

“I want to taper off the military aid within the next 10 years,” Netanyahu told the publication. Asked if he meant “to taper it off to zero,” Netanyahu said “yes.”

“We want to be as independent as possible,” the Israeli leader proffered. Referring to his meeting with the the American president in Florida in late December, Netanyahu added: “In my visit to President Trump, I said we very deeply appreciate the military aid that America has given us over the years, but here too we’ve come of age, and we’ve developed incredible capacities.”

For Israel, the MoU “now matters less for the money it provides than for what it signifies: a gauge of the depth and durability of U.S. support,” the Crisis Group think tank argued in August. “To be sure, FMF has enabled Israel to build up its military power without fully bearing the cost, and phasing out this assistance would impose real burdens. Israel would have to pay for critical U.S. weapons from its own budget.”

However, with its annual GDP now exceeding $700 billion and defense spending above $40 billion, “Israel has found increasing difficulty in arguing that it requires an additional $3.3 billion each year for military purchases,” Crisis Group posited. “Netanyahu has asked the finance ministry to allocate billions of dollars in additional funding for the defense budget over the next decade, a large portion of which would be earmarked to procure U.S. fighter jets, on the assumption that Israel will no longer receive the funds necessary for these purchases from Washington.”

Since the attack by Hamas, U.S. money from the MoU has made up a smaller percentage of the Israeli MoD’s overall budget as the country has increased its own defense spending. Those funds have also been bolstered by several large tranches of U.S. supplemental aid to procure bombs and other weapons.

“For most of the last 15 years, the $3.3 billion Israel receives annually in FMF made up roughly 20% of Israel’s defense budget, which was itself 5-6% of Israel’s GDP in the same period,” the Israel Policy Forum (IPF) explained in May. “Both Israeli defense spending and the share coming from U.S. aid slowly declined amid major economic growth throughout the 2010s, and then spiked in 2023 following the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel and ensuing wars.” 

IPF stated that after the Hamas incursion, “Israel sharply increased defense spending (both within the regular budget framework and in extraordinary expenditures) to 8-9% of GDP, and the U.S. gave Israel several large supplemental security assistance packages between late 2023 and early 2026 in addition to the MOU-directed security aid.”

“The net result, taking into account both much higher Israeli spending and large amounts of American aid, is that in 2024 U.S. assistance briefly accounted for more than one third of Israel’s defense budget,” IPF noted. “In 2025 this figure dropped to close to 10%, with Israel spending an estimated NIS 168 billion ($52 billion) on defense in that year.”

Until recently, “Israel had been given a partial exemption” on the requirement that FMF funds be allocated for American products,” the Crisis Group noted. This allowed Israel to “invest a portion of the money in its own defense industry, Crisis Group explained. “This carveout, in turn, has made Israeli firms more competitive in the arms export market.”

Heavy Reliance On American Hardware

Israel, which has received more than $175 billion in U.S. aid since its creation in 1948, relies heavily on American weaponry. The Israeli Air Force (IAF) tactical aviation fleet consists of U.S.-built F-15s, F-16s, F-35s and AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, among other U.S. types. Israel also made deals for a number of other platforms including KC-46A aerial refueling tankers and CH-53K heavy-lift helicopters and it uses large amounts of American precision munitions. Meanwhile, Israeli missile defense systems like Iron Dome and Arrow 3 have been developed with significant assistance from the U.S.

A top Israeli MoD official told The Times of Israel (ToI) last month that his country wants to flip the switch to add value to the American defense industry by using its experience developing weapons as it fights seemingly constant wars. The continual threats from regional actors and terror groups allow Israel to serve as a testing ground for U.S. defense technologies, Aviram Hasson, director of the Defense Ministry’s mission to the US and Canada, explained.

“Hasson pointed to engineering breakthroughs and intellectual property emerging through development of Israel’s active-defense systems, saying every US government request for technology arising from the long-range anti-ballistic missile Arrow 3 program has been fulfilled,” the publication noted.

“It is clear on both sides of the ocean that this cooperation is a strategic need of both powers, not only of Israel,” Hasson told ToI.

U.S. Has Paid Far More Than $4B A Year For Israel’s Defense

Beyond direct financial aid, the U.S. has expended a great deal of resources defending Israel over the past several years. This has included defending against multiple Iranian missile barrages on Israel on top of participating directly in two wars. In addition, there were the constant drone and missile battles in the Red Sea with the Houthis, who began attacking shipping there in response to Israel’s war in Gaza. Part of the U.S. operation against the Houthis was also providing a layer of protection against long-range missile and drone launches at Israel by the rebel group.

During the course of all these events, the U.S. deployed a very large number of its available warships, aircraft, and air defenses, as well as thousands of personnel, to the Middle East at great expense, both in dollars and the toll on troops and equipment.

Just this year alone, 23 U.S. troops have died and nearly 900 have been injured since the launch of Epic Fury in February. Dozens of aircraft have been destroyed and U.S. bases in the region have been partially destroyed and will take billions to repair.

The U.S. has also fired off a large amount of its own munitions defending Israel from attacks by Iran and its proxies. This has contributed heavily to shortfalls in America’s own stockpiles.

All told, the U.S. has spent nearly $50 billion just on the most current conflict with Iran, far exceeding the $4 billion Israel gets per year in annual direct aid. Then there is the opportunity cost of the massive wear and tear on the force and the U.S. military’s overall capacity to fight in the near and medium term due to all these engagements.

All that being said, it can be argued that the U.S. had major interests in participating in these conflicts beyond just the defense of Israel. It is rarely just that simple. The Iran nuclear program, for instance, has impacts much farther than the Middle East and Israel. Still, the U.S. has poured unprecedented resources into Israel’s defense and these investments far eclipse the $4B being discussed today.

Surprise In Israel

Many Israeli government officials were caught completely off guard by the Trump announcement, according to Politico.

“Officials in the Finance Ministry say they were surprised by U.S. President Donald Trump’s announcement that military aid to Israel would cease by the end of the year, ” the publication reported.

“No formal document was submitted from the Prime Minister’s Office regarding the end of aid,” Politico added. “The ministry was aware of the intention to end it, but was surprised by the intention to do so immediately.”

Officials in the Defense Ministry and the military were also reportedly surprised by the announcement, according to the Post.

“We did not expect this announcement, certainly not today,” a senior defense official told Israeli media.

“There is ongoing dialogue with the Americans, and we can say that we were surprised. We will study the implications of the decision, which has yet to reach professional officials,” the official is quoted as saying.

As for Netanyahu, he has yet to weigh in on Trump’s statement. However, one of his main rivals in the closely fought Israeli parliamentary election that could unseat him has commented.

“The fact that Israel’s defense establishment is learning of a shift in our strategic relationship through the media, at the same time as the Israeli public, shows just how dangerous Benjamin Netanyahu’s conduct is,” Gadi Eisenkot said in a statement. “He can no longer be trusted and must be replaced.”

In his comments to Fox & Friends, Trump conceded that the midterm election played a role in his decision.

The annual assistance to Israel is a “bad talking point” for Democrats, including Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed, the president proclaimed.

“The left uses the $4 billion payment … as a signal of unfairness. And we can’t allow that to happen,” Trump stated. “I don’t like that. … It’s almost too easy to target

There are many unknowns surrounding Trump’s statement about diminishing U.S. support for Israel.

The MoU, if that is what he is talking about, still has two years left, and almost $8 billion worth of anticipated funding, the vast majority earmarked for procurement of U.S. arms. 

As we noted at the top of this piece, the MoU itself isn’t legally binding but the aid is authorized by law and appropriated by Congress each year. Ending it early would mean Congress either not appropriating the money or changing the law.

Will Congress agree to cut the deal off by December? What about the U.S. defense industry? It is unclear at the moment how, or if, this move would affect American defense contractors selling arms to Israel. These companies depend in large measure on predictability and taking this agreement off the table two years early could be problematic.

It is not exactly clear at this point which U.S. arms makers will be hit the hardest by Trump’s announcement. There are billions of dollars in contracts for the future procurement of aircraft, munitions and other equipment to companies like Boeing for F-15Is and KC-46As, Lockheed Martin for F-35Is and AM General for Joint Light Tactical Vehicles. While Israel has bumped up its defense budget, it is not really known at this point how it will cover these costs without that lost U.S. aid.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

Iran says a ‘maximum deterrence’ plan is ready against any new US attack, warning of an immediate response.

Michigan voters are casting their ballots in a charged, closely watched race that could make Democrat Abdul El-Sayed the first Muslim in the United States Senate and help decide control of the chamber.

Mike Rogers, his Republican opponent, cast his ballot at a polling station in White Lake, Michigan hours after polls opened. El-Sayed had already had his vote submitted and counted through an absentee ballot before Election Day.

The two candidates seek to fill the seat of retiring Democratic Senator Gary Peters. A final New York Times/Siena poll placed El-Sayed 11 points ahead of Rogers going into the election.

Polls opened at 7am local time (12:00 GMT) and close at 8pm (01:00 GMT on Wednesday). If the race is close, it may not be called until later on Wednesday. The US Department of Justice has announced that election monitors will be present at the polls in Michigan and all 50 other states, a first in US history.

El-Sayed, a Muslim born to Egyptian parents, is the former head of Detroit’s health department and has campaigned on progressive policies such as Medicare for All.

Rogers, a former congressman and close ally of US President Donald Trump, is seeking to come back after a narrow loss to a Democrat in a 2024 Senate race.

Democrats need to gain four seats in Tuesday’s midterm elections to wrest back the Senate from Republicans and rein in Trump. The race is also seen as a test of whether a progressive who openly criticises Israel can win in a swing state.

Both candidates made a final push on social media as voting got under way.

“It’s time. It’s up to us to show the country what’s possible. The world is watching,” El-Sayed wrote, sharing an upbeat campaign video that features former US President Barack Obama.

Rogers posted a video that featured interviews with supporters, one of whom called El-Sayed an “extremist”.

“We have a state to save”, the post read.

Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer gave a firm endorsement of El-Sayed after casting his own ballot in New York’s race.

“There are millions of Michiganders whose number one issue is getting their costs down,” said Schumer.

“Abdul El-Sayed is … talking to the people about those issues and doing things about them … He is going to win tonight because he’s talking about what Michiganders care about.”

‘One vote’

The El-Sayed campaign’s final days were overshadowed by a rift with Congresswoman Haley Stevens, a fellow Democrat whom El-Sayed narrowly defeated in a primary election in August.

On Sunday, Stevens endorsed Rogers, saying she was “choosing country over hate” and capping off a weeks-long row about El-Sayed’s opposition to US support for Israel.

Stevens is a staunch supporter of Israel, and the pro-Israel lobbying group the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) spent more than $30m backing her against El-Sayed. A majority of her large donors lined up to support Rogers after her loss, channeling $9m into a Republican group that supports him, according to The New York Times.

El-Sayed, by contrast, has accused Israel of genocide in Gaza and argued that US aid to Israel would be better spent at home.

Asked by NewsNation on her way in to vote for Rogers whether her change in support was worth it, Stevens replied: “Absolutely. Voting is always worth it, right?”

Senate leader Schumer, who had initially backed Stevens, was asked whether her defection could hand the election to Republicans. “Haley Stevens is one vote,” he replied.

Islamophobic attacks

El-Sayed, the Michigan-born son of Egyptian immigrants, has faced persistent attacks on his faith. Republican Party ads have sought to link him to “terrorism” and radicalism, with Trump joining in the inflammatory rhetoric.

The US president has repeatedly called El-Sayed a “jihadist” and a “nasty guy”, mocking his name and repeating an unfounded, widely circulated Republican claim that he belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Hours before polls opened, Trump once again took aim at El-Sayed, this time in a post on his Truth Social platform.

“Abdul El-Sayed Hates Jews and Hates Blacks. Don’t feel bad, he also Hates Whites. Only fools would vote for him in the Michigan race for the U.S. Senate! He will, 100%, do you in! VOTE FOR MIKE ROGERS,” Trump wrote.

The US president also mentioned El-Sayed in a Fox News interview early on Election Day, when he said annual US financial aid to Israel should stop at the end of 2026.

“Why should we suffer the slings from lunatics like an El-Sayed when they [Israel] don’t need it?” he said.

US President ⁠Donald ⁠Trump says he made a deal with ⁠Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that ⁠Washington would no longer be providing funding to Israel after the end of this ‌year.

“Now, as far as paying Israel, Bibi Netanyahu and I have made a deal that we give Israel $4bn ⁠a year, and ⁠we made a deal months ago that we’re stopping,” Trump told ⁠Fox News’ Fox and Friends after voting in the midterm elections began.

“We’ve ⁠already agreed that ⁠by the end of this year we won’t be paying Israel. ‌Now we’ll help Israel if they need it.”

It was not immediately clear what form of aid Trump was discussing.

Military aid to Israel, and US political campaign contributions from Israel’s backers to candidates, have been a flashpoint for both Democrats and Republicans this year.

Harsh public criticism of Israel by US political leaders in recent years marks a dramatic shift from decades of staunch bipartisan backing.

The US House of Representatives defeated an amendment to cut off aid to Israel in July, despite nearly half of Democrats supporting it, reflecting a growing rupture between US progressives and Israel over its genocidal war in Gaza.

The House voted 314 to ‌104 to defeat the measure, offered as an amendment to a State Department spending bill by outgoing Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, an outspoken Republican critic of US policy in the Middle East.

The election night highs for Palestinian citizens of Israel – Arab-led parties won a record 19 seats – turned into a week of delegitimising rhetoric from Israeli politicians.

Nearly 840,000 people voted for Ra’am and the Joint List, a 64 percent increase on 2022, and adding them to opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot’s bloc would give an anti-Netanyahu coalition 67 seats; without them, only a unity deal between the main Zionist blocs or another election is possible.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud alleged the election had been “stolen” by Palestinian parties with unproven claims of Qatari financing. Qatar denied such accusations, as police sources told The Times of Israel that there was no evidence of widespread fraud. By Sunday, election committee chairman Noam Sohlberg declared the election “conducted properly”.

However, the rhetoric delegitimising the Palestinian vote is now being reflected in the coalition negotiations under way. Avigdor Lieberman, leader of the right-wing Yisrael Beytenu party, has ruled out Palestinian partners, and Eisenkot has presented four conditions for anyone joining his coalition that would be anathema to the Palestinian parties, including recognising Israel as “a Jewish, democratic, liberal, and egalitarian state”, and mandatory national service for all citizens, including Palestinians.

However, Palestinian politicians continue to express a willingness to back an Eisenkot government from outside – if only to enable the departure of Netanyahu and the far right. Meanwhile, thousands rallied in Tel Aviv for a coalition that includes the parties representing Palestinian citizens of Israel.

10 days of siege in Hebron

While the Israeli electorate was consumed by the election’s unclear results, Palestinians in the occupied West Bank continued enduring a variety of sieges, most prominently in Hebron. By October 29, Al Jazeera’s data unit counted 10 entrances sealed and about 5,000 people displaced. The city saw at least 120 arrests and 13 businesses demolished by Friday, when the army also blew up the homes of two men it blamed for an attack. Palestinian officials accused the government of using the operation to win settler votes; no Israeli official has said so outright.

On November 2, Governor Khaled Dudin announced the army had withdrawn from Hebron, and that displaced families could return. The Jerusalem Post reported that the army’s chief of staff recommended leaving Hebron before the election, but that Netanyahu refused.

But even with the operation over, the damage remains following more than 120 arrests and daily economic losses the governor put at 10 million to 12 million shekels ($3.2m to $3.8m) in a city responsible for about 40 percent of Palestinian industrial output.

Sieges in homes, expulsions from land

But Hebron was only the largest of many closures that continue to plague the West Bank. In Masafer Yatta, at least 12 villages were cut off, and the Palestinian news agency Wafa reported that forces detained 10 teachers from the Jinba school on Sunday.

Yousef Shanaran – who has been besieged in his home with his family in Wadi Rakhim for four weeks now – told Al Jazeera on Monday that settlers have now poisoned the well outside his family home, which the family already was unable to access for days at a time due to the siege. “No water, no food, nothing at all I’ve got,” he said. “Nobody is allowed to bring anything to us.”

These sieges continue as settlers, and increasingly Israeli forces, disrupt the olive harvest across the West Bank. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) documented 397 settler attacks causing casualties or damage in the first 26 days of October – a monthly high since OCHA began tracking such incidents in 2006.

Across villages, a familiar pattern has emerged: settlers attack pickers, the army declares a closed military zone and orders the farmers out, and the harvest is lost.

Amid reports of detentions and deportations of solidarity activists who came to the West Bank to assist in the olive harvest in recent days, activists accused settlers of assaulting three activist journalists at Umm al-Khair, and Israel revoked Brad Lander’s travel authorisation after he was detained while harvesting olives two weeks ago.

Gaza: Deadly ‘ceasefire’ continues

In Gaza, attacks continued on a daily basis as the UN human rights office warned on October 30 that Palestinians are being pushed into an ever smaller area, calling the “Yellow Line” a “kill zone” that is moving westward.

By November 2, the Ministry of Health put the death toll since last year’s ceasefire at 1,593. Sunday was the deadliest day of the week, with at least eight killed. Among those reported killed over the past week:

• Government and police personnel were among those killed. On October 28, a drone strike on a Ministry of Economy facility in al-Mawasi, Rafah, where staff and security personnel had gathered, killed five people, including Ministry of Agriculture official Wajdi Abu Bakr, who died on Sunday from injuries sustained in the attack.
• On November 1, a drone strike in al-Mawasi, Khan Younis, killed five men whom Gaza’s Interior Ministry said were police officers.
• Israeli attacks also killed children. Six-year-old Tahani Shalalfeh died of a gunshot wound in al-Mawasi, Khan Younis, on October 27, and Yamen Saqr, eight, died on October 30 of wounds from Israeli fire in Khan Younis, according to Wafa and local activists. The young child Zain Owais was reported killed on November 1 with his father, Mohammed Ali Owais, and a third man in a strike near Taj Mall in Gaza City.
• On October 27, a young man was killed in an air strike in west Rafah, and a member of the Bseiso family died of earlier wounds in Gaza City, Gaza Now reported. Mohammad al-Bayouk was killed in Khan Younis on October 28, and Mohammed al-Najjar was killed near Jabalia on Thursday.
• On Friday, the body of a 47-year-old man killed in an air strike at al-Waha, north of Gaza City, was recovered, Wafa reported.
• Ibrahim Saeed died on Sunday of wounds from tank fire in al-Musaddar, and Yusuf Abu Younis died Monday of wounds from a drone strike in Khan Younis the day before, according to local activist Hamza al-Masri.
• On Monday, Mahmoud Qaffa and Asaad Qeshta were killed in separate air strikes in Khan Younis and Ibrahim al-Saayida, 40, in al-Musaddar, according to Wafa and Haaretz.

Israeli authorities claimed many of those killed this week were Hamas fighters, though no evidence was provided. Among those were Diaa Abu al-Rous, killed north of Nuseirat on Saturday, and Mohammed Qudeih, killed in a strike on a tent in Khan Younis the same day, who the military claimed were members of Hamas’s Nukhba Forces; Palestinian reports describe Abu al-Rous as a teacher.

Such killings take place with winter closing in and humanitarian conditions struggling to improve: two infant girls died of burns in a tent fire in al-Mawasi on Friday, and the shelter picture is dire, with Gaza’s Social Development Ministry saying about 200,000 tents are needed, yet only dozens have arrived due to Israeli entry restrictions.

With no hospitals in Gaza fully functioning, the Red Crescent warned on Monday that the health system is at risk of collapse after 26 hospitals went out of service – with fuel shortages threatening the remaining facilities.

Hebron, occupied West Bank – Nour al-Natsha knew there was a chance his home wouldn’t be in the best condition upon his return after 10 days of displacement.

Israeli forces had taken over Hebron’s al-Jalada neighbourhood on October 24, a day after Palestinian gunmen killed two Israeli soldiers nearby. Al-Natsha’s family were given 20 minutes to leave, taking only their money, gold and important documents, and leaving behind most of their clothes, everyday belongings and family photographs.

After hearing that Israeli forces had withdrawn, al-Natsha tentatively returned to check on the house on Monday.

He found the doors wide open, and the house turned upside down. Belongings were missing, as well as his young daughter’s pet bird.

“When we entered the house, it was a mixture of emotions,” the 35-year-old orthopaedic surgeon said. “You couldn’t tell whether you were happy to be back home or heartbroken by what had happened to it.”

The Israeli military operation in Hebron appears to be over – but al-Natsha and his family, and thousands of others in the city, are left to pick up the pieces.

Anxious return

Al-Natsha explained that families and neighbours had gathered on Sunday evening in the nearby Wadi al-Karm area, close to their homes, waiting until around midnight after reports emerged that the military operation had ended. But seeing no signs of a withdrawal, they returned to their temporary accommodation, despite holding on to the hope of going home soon.

Then, in the early hours of the morning, it was confirmed that the military had withdrawn. Al-Natsha decided to head towards the neighbourhood at around 6am. There, he found several neighbours making their way home and waited for relatives to arrive before entering the area and inspecting their houses.

Al-Natsha was initially accompanied by his father and two brothers as they inspected the property, looking for suspicious objects or potential hazards after finding the doors open.

Once they were satisfied that the house was safe, family members began cleaning and putting things back in order, removing belongings they feared might have been damaged or contaminated, in an effort to make the house habitable again and resume their daily lives.

But the family’s return was not without anxiety, particularly for al-Natsha’s four-year-old daughter, Ilya. Her biggest concern was the fate of her pet bird, “Natosh”, which she had left inside the house when the family was forced to leave.

Al-Natsha has no idea where the bird is, whether it is dead, or whether the Israeli soldiers released it. Ilya, meanwhile, keeps asking about her pet.

‘Our paradise on earth’

The return of families to al-Jalada came after 10 days of military restrictions and evacuations affecting several neighbourhoods in Hebron.

During the operation, hundreds of families were forced to leave their homes, while shops and institutions in the areas were closed.

According to previously released figures from the Hebron Governorate’s Support and Relief Committee, 537 families, comprising approximately 3,300 people, were displaced.

With residents now returning, the extent of the damage to homes and belongings, and the lasting effects of the days spent away, remain part of the experience of families trying to rebuild their lives.

For 68-year-old Khaled Shawer, who also lives in the neighbourhood, the damage to homes and the debris and destruction left behind by the military operation could be dealt with. What mattered most was that residents had returned and could begin to regain a sense of stability.

“Everything can be replaced: the destruction, the damage, the dirt, everything,” Shawer said. “But the most important thing is that we have returned to our homes, our paradise on earth, the place where we find our psychological and physical stability.”

Tehran, Iran – Iran’s military is warning that if all-out war breaks out again with the United States and Israel, it will be longer and more costly than their rivals expect.

Iran’s armed forces could deploy new weapons and tactics against the US, Israel and other countries, which would be the third major conflict between the countries since June last year.

There have been increasing signs that the US and Israel’s war on Iran, which began on February 28, could restart after the US midterm elections. President Donald Trump said on Sunday that the war with Iran will end “very soon one way or the other” and Tehran should agree a deal or “the hammer” will come down.

Hossein Kanani Moghaddam, a former senior IRGC commander, told Al Jazeera that despite extensive blows to the Iranian armed forces during US and Israeli strikes earlier this year, they are now in better operational shape compared with previous conflicts.

“In terms of offence, our target database has significantly expanded, the range, accuracy and warheads of our missiles have improved and our drone capabilities have increased,” he said.

New enemy assets were being identified and operations in additional geographical areas were being planned, he added. Arkaminia said that previously undisclosed capabilities and targets would be revealed – and used – if Iran is attacked again.

Commanders from Iran’s General Staff of Armed Forces, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Islamic Republic of Iran Army are reported to have recently met Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei to discuss what steps will be taken if attacked again. The response will be immediate and could go beyond the West Asia region, they said.

The IRGC was “100 percent ready” to confront another attack, spokesman Hossein Mohebbi said on Sunday evening, describing “maximum deterrence” as a goal Iran would reach in the near future.

Army spokesman Mohammad Akraminia said the commanders would rely on “asymmetric warfare” tactics that would compensate for the superiority of US military equipment.

He added that “some weaponry was renovated and new equipment was added along with new tactics” during the brief ceasefire period that came after the June memorandum of understanding between Iran and the US.

Last month, state television showed an underground drone production line. The authorities also showcased an upgraded version of the Arash attack drone and claimed that its warhead had doubled to 100kg with improved guidance.

According to a Reuters investigation published last week, numerous military agencies linked with Iran’s defence establishment have evaded sanctions and funnelled billions into military imports to replenish the IRGC. The imports between January 2025 and June this year from China, Russia and Germany to fuel missile and drone production included rocket propellants, explosives, detonators, titanium and heavy-duty trucks that could be used as launchers.

Many Iranian missile defence systems, radars and other equipment were hit during the war. But Kanani Moghaddam said remaining and newly developed systems were becoming more accurate, pointing to the targeting of a US-built F-35 and other warplanes and drones as successes that can be replicated and expanded upon.

“At sea, we have shown that we can easily target supertankers,” he said regarding transit through the Strait of Hormuz that is deemed “unauthorised” by Iranian authorities. He said Iranian attacks on US Navy vessels in September prompted them to stop venturing into the critical waterway since. But the US has continued its naval blockade on southern Iranian ports, while Iran’s civilian population and infrastructure remain largely exposed if the war resumes.

Tehran and other cities across the country lack shelters or early warning systems to protect civilians. Authorities have not reported any progress regarding the promised shelters and gaps in public warning arrangements.

Iran’s electricity grid, as well as oil and gas facilities, petrochemical and steel manufacturers and roads and railways could also be attacked again, making life even more difficult amid the economic crisis.

‘Intelligence weakness’

During both wars, many senior political and military figures of the Islamic Republic were killed by US and Israeli strikes.

The new supreme leader has not been seen or heard from since replacing his father, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in early March, ostensibly for security reasons.

This has led to tighter domestic security controls, and prompted some voices from within the establishment to raise concerns and demand accountability for intelligence failures and protection of leadership.

“We have been hit and hit hard,” state-linked analyst Hamzeh Rahim Safavi said during a televised debate on Saturday. “The main cause is intelligence weakness, but no one talks about it or is held accountable”.

The analyst is the son of Yahya Rahim Safavi, a former commander-in-chief of the IRGC who currently serves as a senior military adviser to the supreme leader. The analyst said calls by hardliners to acquire a nuclear bomb would not repair intelligence and security weaknesses.

But Esmaeil Kowsari, a former IRGC division commander now a parliamentary national-security commission member, told local media last week that even though the supreme leader and others were assassinated, “the enemies did not reach their main goals”. He said the goals were to overthrow the Islamic Republic and fragment Iran.

“On the eve of their elections, the Americans are trying to pretend that they have achieved victory by causing a ruckus and launching psychological operations, but that is not the truth,” Kowsari said.

In the October 27 Israeli elections, 38 parties ran for office. Of these, only two supported peace, equality and an end to the occupation of Palestinian territories. Both were “Arab parties” – made up of Palestinian citizens of Israel.

These two parties earned a historic result, securing 19 seats in the Knesset, after some 80 percent of Palestinian citizens cast a vote.

This unprecedented turnout contributed to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s failure to secure a majority.  His bloc won 53 seats, while the Jewish-led opposition won 48.

The electoral mobilisation of Palestinians was immediately spun as a threat and Palestinian communities now face intensified incitement by members of Netanyahu’s camp. The pro-Netanyahu camp has alleged that the election was “stolen” and is now calling for restrictions on the “Arab vote”.

Thus, Palestinian electoral success exposed an uncomfortable question for Israeli politics: what happens when citizens who are informally isolated on the political scene but whose vote is formally equal become powerful enough to determine who governs?

Palestinian citizens face a fundamental question: Can they truly determine the political outcome and if they can, does that make them equal citizens?

Formal inclusion, informal exclusion

Palestinian citizens of Israel have long faced a dilemma over voting. If they do not mobilise to vote, the risk is that the Jewish right would come to power is high. If they do vote, there is no guarantee that their participation would translate into policies that protect or benefit their communities.

In 1999, Arab turnout reached approximately 75 percent in the elections and Palestinian citizens overwhelmingly supported Ehud Barak of the Labour Party against Netanyahu. A year later, after Ariel Sharon’s visit to Al-Aqsa compound and the outbreak of the second Intifada, Israeli police killed 13 Palestinian citizens. Outrage and disillusionment contributed to an Arab boycott of the 2001 election, when turnout fell to about 19 percent. Sharon won.

Today, Palestinian electoral participation still retains its sway. Higher turnout among Palestinians means fewer seats for two main blocs – the pro- and anti-Netanyahu camps – which could tip the balance in the Knesset. This is what happened on October 27 .

But this potentially powerful position of the Palestinian parties has been diminished by the refusal of Jewish-led parties to work with them on government formation.

The logic of this exclusion was made clear in April 2021, when far-right politician Bezalel Smotrich rejected Netanyahu’s attempt to establish a government supported by one of the Palestinian parties, Ra’am. Smotrich argued that doing so would encourage greater Palestinian turnout which would allow the Palestinian community to enable the return of the left to power in Israel. Accepting Palestinian parties would therefore challenge the Jewish right’s political dominance.

Ra’am eventually joined the short-lived coalition government formed by Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid, without making any national demands, but its participation came at the cost of significant concessions on national issues. For the first time, Palestinian political leaders recognised Israel as a Jewish state and were even willing to set aside the national question in favour of addressing civil and socioeconomic issues.

Despite these concessions, the Bennett–Lapid government ultimately collapsed following the resignation of two coalition members who opposed sitting in a government alongside Palestinian representatives.

Netanyahu then realised that to prevent the formation of any future government of change, he needed to delegitimise the Palestinian parties and limit their political representation.

Following October 7, 2023, Palestinian citizens experienced a sharp contraction of political space. Students faced disciplinary proceedings over social-media posts; employees lost jobs; antiwar speech prompted police investigations and arrests.

The electoral process itself reflected this climate. Israel’s Central Elections Committee voted to disqualify both Palestinian electoral lists, along with lawmaker Ofer Cassif and Balad chairman Sami Abu Shehadeh. The Supreme Court eventually reversed the bans on the lists.

Meanwhile, attacking Palestinians, including Palestinian citizens of Israel, became a political staple. Ahead of this election, media outlet Arabic Post conducted an analysis of more than 10,000 election-related social-media items. It reported that 40 percent of posts by candidates from Netanyahu’s camp concerned Arabs or Palestinians, and that 94 percent of those were hostile.

More troubling were the police raids on the homes of Ra’am activists in the Negev, following suspicions of electoral bribery which led to the arrest of three men.

Police acknowledged searches without warrants and later reports questioned the strength of the evidence. All three men were released. But the ripple effect of those allegations helped shape a narrative of suspicion against the Palestinian community.

Attacks on the Palestinian vote

In this election, after years of repression and incitement, Palestinian citizens did not retreat. They organised, voted in unprecedented numbers and achieved a remarkable result. They took a gamble by taking their citizenship seriously and by asserting their right to full political equality and a meaningful say in shaping the country’s future.

However, the parties they voted for face isolation unless they fulfil the conditions set by the Jewish-led opposition: namely, recognising Israel as exclusively Jewish, labelling Hamas a “terrorist” organisation and accepting compulsory military or national service, from which Palestinian citizens are now exempt.

In other words, Palestinians can access the political power they should have only if they fully capitulate on the Palestinian question, embrace Zionism and accept their own status as unequal citizens.

In parallel, the Palestinian community also faces intensified incitement, particularly by the pro-Netanyahu camp. Politicians and public figures are throwing claims of electoral manipulation, insisting “the Arabs stole the election”.

Former Deputy Knesset Speaker Moshe Feiglin went as far as declaring that the Palestinian electoral mobilisation was the “October 7” of Israeli politics. Yair Netanyahu, the prime minister’s son, called Palestinian citizens of Israel “the greatest danger to the survival of the State of Israel—aside from the Iranian nuclear threat”.

Many Palestinian citizens now fear that political success could bring further intimidation, restrictions or violence rather than recognition.

Thus, the high voter turnout among Palestinian citizens has forced Israeli society and its political establishment to confront the inherent contradiction between Israel’s identity as a Jewish state and its claim to be a democracy.

This fundamental dilemma may ultimately be resolved in favour of Jewish political dominance, leading to legislation that further undermines Palestinian civil rights and expands the system of apartheid and Jewish supremacy.

It would not be surprising if a bill were introduced in the next Knesset aimed solely at restricting Palestinians’ voting rights. There are already calls on social media for such a move.

A July survey by Israel Democracy Institute found that only 46 percent of respondents in the right-wing Jewish camp supported Palestinian citizens’ right to vote.

In the current reality, following the genocide in Gaza, there is a growing sense among Jewish Israelis that there are no longer any limits to what they can do, pushing the state to act with virtually no restraint towards Palestinian citizens.

If Israeli society does not change direction, its pretence of democracy may soon no longer hold.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

DETROIT — Michigan Democrat Abdul El-Sayed’s former opponent in the U.S. Senate primary, Rep. Haley Stevens, stunned party officials Sunday by endorsing his Republican rival, Mike Rogers, after Democratic tensions boiled over days before the election that could determine the balance of power on Capitol Hill.

Stevens endorsed Rogers after attending a Detroit church service with him. The remarkable show of support for the President Trump-backed candidate in the tightly contested race comes after she was uninvited to a joint event the same day with El-Sayed, who defeated the congresswoman by a slim margin in the August primary.

“Our Democratic nominee for Senate said I was no longer welcome in his campaign and that I should stay away,” Stevens said in a video announcing the endorsement. “And he’s right. And that’s why I am endorsing Mike Rogers for the United States Senate today.”

El-Sayed dismissed the endorsement when asked about it by reporters later Sunday, saying he’s focused on issues voters care about, such as the high cost of living.

“At the end of the day I actually don’t think about Haley Stevens,” he said, adding later: “None of this matters.”

Michigan Democratic leaders were left shocked. With just less than 48 hours to go before election day, a party that had spent months trying to unite behind its Senate nominee was suddenly grappling with an extraordinary defection in one of this year’s most important races.

Tensions between the two Democrats have festered since the primary. Stevens is a staunch supporter of Israel, while El-Sayed is a fierce critic of the U.S. ally. He has also been criticized by some in the community for past remarks regarding a Michigan synagogue attack and for appearances with controversial streamer Hasan Piker.

El-Sayed, a former Michigan public health official, is facing Rogers, an ex-congressman, for the seat held by the retiring Democrat, Gary Peters. Keeping Michigan in Democratic hands is vital to the party’s effort to win a majority for the final two years of Trump’s second term.

Stevens and El-Sayed were originally scheduled to attend church together, along with other Michigan and national Democrats, including South Carolina Rep. James E. Clyburn. Democrats hoped it would be a show of unity as they worked to boost turnout in the Detroit area, where concerns have lingered about enthusiasm among Black and Jewish voters in key Democratic strongholds.

Instead, Stevens swayed to gospel music alongside Rogers in the pews at Perfecting Church, while El-Sayed was a few miles away at a different house of worship campaigning alongside prominent Democrats, including Clyburn.

Stevens’ top aide resigns

After the church service north of Detroit, where Stevens and fiance Jason Turkish worshiped with Rogers and his wife, Kristi, the congresswoman told reporters, “I’m not turning my back on Democrats. It is this one vote.”

Rogers, standing beside her, said he was “honored” by her support.

Their appearance came days after Stevens publicly reaffirmed she would vote for El-Sayed. It also led her longtime chief of staff to resign, with a number of staff members expected to follow soon, according to a person familiar with the developments who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters.

“We are shocked and heartbroken,” the aide said in a statement.

The state party chair, Curtis Hertel, said Stevens’ endorsement “shows that she has abandoned everything she claims to care about.”

“We reject the attempts by Stevens and bad-faith actors to divide our party and undermine our momentum,” Hertel wrote, adding that they won’t let such eleventh-hour “distractions” deter the campaign. Hertel later wrote that Stevens “is not a current member of the Michigan Democratic Party, nor will she be in the future.”

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, who supported Stevens in the primary, denounced her endorsement of Rogers.

“This is a despicable betrayal from Rep. Stevens,” Schumer, of New York, wrote in a social media post.

Dingell disinvited Stevens after it became ‘distracting’

Among the Democrats who joined El-Sayed at church Sunday morning were Rep. Debbie Dingell of Michigan, Sen. Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, who dropped out of the Senate primary before voting began.

Dingell, a senior Democratic figure in the state who helped organize the planned joint appearance, said she asked Stevens not to attend and that Stevens told her she would abide by that.

“I’m the one who pulled it because it had become way too distracting,” Dingell said a telephone interview Sunday before Stevens’ appearance with Rogers. “This is not how I was going to spend my weekend before the election, to be perfectly frank.”

In the August primary, Stevens defeated El-Sayed in Wayne County, which includes Detroit, and neighboring Oakland County, drawing support from Black and Jewish voters who are important parts of the Democratic coalition.

Early voting for Tuesday’s election has been underway since Oct. 24. As of Friday, more than 1.8 million people had already voted in Michigan.

How did we get here?

The Democratic primary was among the most bitter this year. Each candidate accused the other of making personal attacks. Tens of millions of dollars in outside spending poured into the race, including from the super PAC affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, known as AIPAC, which backed Stevens. El-Sayed took particular offense to an outside group’s ad accusing him of disrespecting women.

Although Stevens pledged after the primary to help El-Sayed however she could, the two have not appeared together publicly since a unity breakfast two days after his primary win.

Last week Stevens’ fiance told the Detroit News that he would vote for Rogers. Stevens later appeared on CNN to reaffirm her support for El-Sayed but urged his campaign to “shut out the hate and call it out.”

But on Friday, after the Associated Press reported on the planned joint appearance, Stevens released a lengthy statement calling on El-Sayed to condemn an ad by an independent left-wing group that linked U.S. support for Israel to high grocery prices.

“Abdul promises to get money out of politics,” Stevens wrote. “He can begin by getting Israel out of his explanation for everything Michigan cannot afford.”

El-Sayed then responded: “So while Congresswoman Stevens seems intent on relitigating a primary that ended three months ago, let’s all focus on the task at hand.”

He made clear the ad was not made by his campaign and said “I do not agree with the contents of that ad.”

The Michigan-born Democratic nominee, meanwhile, has been the frequent target of Islamophobic attacks, including from Trump. At a rally last weekend, Trump called El-Sayed a “jihadist,” adding: “He would be the only senator that will have to go through a metal detector before he’s allowed to go into the Senate.”

Trump and Republicans revel in the discord

Trump praised Stevens in a social media post, saying she was “a Highly Respected Democrat” and that her support from Black and Jewish voters in Michigan is “virtually unprecedented.”

“Haley said what few people are willing to say. She showed great and almost unprecedented loyalty to the Great People of Michigan with what she did,” Trump wrote. “It’s a thing called bravery, and few people have it like just displayed by Congresswoman Haley Stevens!”

Appearing with Trump in Iowa for a campaign rally, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said that he spoke to Stevens after she endorsed Rogers. Johnson said he “encouraged her to stay safe and keep speaking the truth.”

Stevens is not seeking reelection to her House seat Tuesday.

A spokesman for the Republican National Committee, Hunter Lovell, said Democrats who feel abandoned by El-Sayed “have a home” with Rogers.

Cappelletti, Williams and Householder write for the Associated Press. Cappelletti reported from Washington.

Election body says deadlocked result won’t be undermined even if foreign interference claims are found to be true.

The head of Israel’s elections commission has said the results of the country’s general election would still stand even if claims of foreign interference were substantiated.

“Our position is that even if the suspicions are substantiated, this would not undermine the integrity of the electoral process or the election results as a whole,” Central Elections Committee head Noam Sohlberg said in a video on Sunday, in which he appeared with the head of the Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security agency, and the attorney general.

Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu’s Likud party had questioned the results after saying, without providing evidence, that Arab-led parties, which made significant gains in Tuesday’s elections, “stole” the vote and accepted funding from Qatar to do it.

Qatar has rejected the allegations, calling it a disinformation campaign.

Also on Sunday, Israeli police released two out of three political activists arrested before Tuesday’s polls opened. They were carrying envelopes of cash, allegedly to bribe voters, police said.

One was released on unspecified conditions, while another was ordered to remain on house arrest.

Police said the suspects were connected to the Arab-led Ra’am party, which won eight seats.

Its leader, Mansour Abbas, denounced the arrests as undemocratic and “an attempt to influence the election results”.

‘Orchestrated and organised campaign’

Main opposition leader Eisenkot on Sunday accused Netanyahu of launching an “orchestrated and organised campaign to delegitimise the results”.

Eisenkot has previously ruled out forming a coalition with Arab parties, but a deadlock in Tuesday’s elections means siding with the parties could help him form a government.

Netanyahu’s bloc won 53 seats in Tuesday’s elections, while the opposition bloc, led by Gadi Eisenkot, won 48, meaning neither side can form a government in Israel’s 120-seat parliament alone.

Israel’s three Arab-led parties, including the Ra’am party, won a record 19 seats.

A coalition of Arab parties with Eisenkot would provide a comfortable majority of 67 in parliament. However, for many in Israel, the idea of siding with Arab parties is politically unpalatable.

The results are due to be officially certified this week, after which President Isaac Herzog must nominate a candidate to form a new government.

US president warns Iran to make a deal, as IRGC says two tankers have hit mines and caught fire in the Strait of Hormuz.

Hebron’s economic losses surpass $3.8m as Israeli forces demolish West Bank homes and close hundreds of businesses.

Israeli forces are maintaining their siege on Hebron for the 10th consecutive day, threatening to expand their offensive and forcing more Palestinian families from their homes.

The lockdown in the occupied West Bank city was enforced after an attack on October 23 near Hebron in which two Israeli soldiers were killed.

More than 3,300 Palestinians have since been displaced or affected, with homes destroyed and businesses shut, according to the local municipality.

Mayor Yousef al-Jabari told Al Jazeera on Saturday that daily economic losses were estimated to exceed 12 million shekels ($3.8m), with more than $1.9m worth of damage to infrastructure, along with losses in the health and environmental sectors estimated at about $160,000.

He said Israeli forces have demolished 15 homes and other structures and forced 327 businesses to close. About 80,000 students have been unable to attend school for 10 days, he added.

The mayor said Hebron accounts for about 40 percent of the Palestinian economy and the siege amounts to “collective punishment”.

Palestinian families in and around the city fear the army could soon extend its attacks.

Raids and settler attacks

Israeli arrests of Palestinians in Hebron and other cities in the occupied West Bank continued on Sunday.

Israeli forces arrested 10 Palestinian teachers in Masafer Yatta, south of Hebron and seized their vehicle, reported the Palestinian news agency Wafa.

Video shared by Palestinian media and verified by Al Jazeera showed the Israeli military raiding a school run by the United Nations in the Shufat refugee camp in occupied East Jerusalem.

The United Nations humanitarian office, OCHA, said Israeli settlers carried out 397 attacks on Palestinians across the occupied West Bank in October, the highest monthly figure since monitoring began in 2006, Wafa said.

Between October 20 and 26, settler attacks targeted 49 Palestinian communities, mostly while Palestinians harvested olives on their land.

Nine children were among 57 Palestinians injured by settlers and Israeli forces: 34 by military gunfire and physical assaults and 23 in settler attacks.

Since the start of 2015, Israeli authorities have issued 9,518 demolition or stop-work notices against Palestinian property in the occupied West Bank, reported the Colonization and Wall Resistance Commission. The Palestinian government commission added that 344 of those notices were given in the first nine months of this year.

Iran’s top diplomat tells Al Jazeera Tehran has reached a plan with Qatari mediators to reopen Hormuz within two days if the US meets its conditions.