Yeshiva World News5 hours agoFormer Hamas hostage Eitan Mor has revealed that Hamas terrorists filmed him dozens of times during his captivity in Gaza but never released a single video of him. Mor believes the decision was directly connected to the position taken by his father, Tzvika Mor, who refused to participate in demonstrations demanding a hostage deal and opposed ending the war at any cost. The revelations came during an interview on Kan 11’s “Taboo” program with Israeli television personality Hanoch Daum.
During the interview, Daum asked Mor whether Hamas terrorists had recorded videos of him while he was being held hostage. “Dozens of times, but they never released anything,” Mor responded. When asked why he believed the recordings were never made public, Mor explained that his father’s refusal to participate in the protests made the videos less useful to Hamas.
“Because my father didn’t go to the demonstrations. So what was the point?” Mor said. “They saw that my father was against that decision, against ending the war at any cost. So why waste a video of me? They released every video at the right time, before a demonstration.”
Mor’s remarks offered a glimpse into what he believes was Hamas’s calculated use of hostage videos as a form of psychological warfare, designed to influence public opinion in Israel and increase pressure on the government during negotiations over the hostages’ release. According to Mor, the terrorists carefully timed the release of their recordings to coincide with demonstrations, seeking to maximize their impact on Israeli society.
The conversation then turned to the intense public criticism directed at Mor’s father, Tzvika, throughout his son’s captivity. While many hostage families participated in demonstrations calling for an immediate agreement to secure their loved ones’ release, Tzvika publicly opposed any deal that would require Israel to end the war regardless of the consequences.
Daum raised the difficult question that had followed Tzvika during that period: How could a father whose own son was being held hostage oppose a deal that might bring him home?
Mor responded with an unequivocal defense of his father, praising both his courage and his willingness to consider Israel’s long-term security even while his own son remained in Hamas captivity.
“First of all, in my opinion, my father did the bravest thing possible, and the nationally correct thing,” Mor said. “Because my father was also thinking about the future.”
He continued by contrasting his father’s position with those who demanded the immediate release of the hostages regardless of the terms.
“The people who said, ‘Bring the hostages home now,’ were thinking only about the moment,” Mor explained. “And then what happens afterward?”
The interview was part of a special episode of “Taboo” featuring four survivors of Hamas captivity, who joined Daum for conversations about their experiences in Gaza, their return to Israel, and the challenges of rebuilding their lives following their release.
Mor’s testimony provides a personal account of how Hamas used hostage recordings during the war, while also shedding light on the difficult decisions faced by families whose loved ones were held in Gaza. For Mor, his father’s controversial public stance was not a betrayal of his son but an extraordinary act of courage rooted in concern for Israel’s future.
(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)
Reggie Torah ShortsTag this person NOW😂 #jewishcomedy #jewishhumor #comedy #funny #lol
Kol HaolamHouse Speaker Mike Johnson: Everybody's frustrated about fuel prices, obviously, but that's not related to policies. It's not related to the Republicans in office. This is related to the Strait of Hormuz. It is not yet resolved there.
Matzav2 hours agoAfrah lepumei.
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich ignited a storm of criticism in the chareidi community on Monday after declaring that he davens for Maran Hagaon Rav Dov Landau, Rosh Yeshivas Slabodka.
The disgusting remark came during an interview at an Arutz Sheva conference in Ofra, where Smotrich, chairman of the Religious Zionist Party, discussed the ideological differences between the national-religious and chareidi communities, the controversy surrounding military conscription, and recent statements attributed to Rav Landau concerning Zionism and religious soldiers.
Asked why he had refrained from publicly responding to Rav Landau’s remarks, Smotrich explained that his silence should not be interpreted as agreement. Rather, he said, he was reluctant to enter into a public confrontation with a talmid chochom.
Smotrich invoked the warning of Chazal to exercise caution when dealing with Torah scholars, explaining that he did not believe publicly challenging Rav Landau would accomplish anything constructive.
He then added that the Rosh Yeshiva’s views caused him considerable pain and that he was praying for a change in his outlook.
“It pains me, and I pray to Hashem that He brings him, too, to repentance,” Smotrich said, referring to Rav Landau.
The statement immediately drew sharp criticism in chareidi media, where commentators expressed outrage that a government minister would speak about one of the generation’s leading gedolei Torah in such terms.
The controversy followed the release last week of recordings in which Rav Landau, 96, was heard expressing fierce opposition to Zionism and the religious Zionist worldview.
The recordings, broadcast by Channel 12 on October 5, reportedly originated from a private discussion held at the Rosh Yeshiva’s home approximately a year and a half earlier.
In the conversation, Rav Landau criticized the establishment of the State of Israel, argued that Zionism had brought serious difficulties upon the Jewish people, and rejected the religious Zionist understanding of the state’s establishment as part of the process of geulah.
The recordings also included sharp criticism of religious Zionist rabbonim and their approach to military service, particularly the participation of religious soldiers in Israel’s wars.
Those comments provoked condemnation from several Israeli politicians, including figures who accused the chareidi leadership of failing to recognize the sacrifices of religious soldiers.
Smotrich, however, initially avoided directly criticizing Rav Landau, citing his respect for Torah scholars despite his fundamental disagreement with the Rosh Yeshiva’s views.
During Monday’s interview, journalist Chagai Segal pressed Smotrich on the matter, pointing out that Rav Landau had characterized the state and its founders in exceptionally harsh terms.
Smotrich responded by distinguishing between the views of individual figures and the broader communities they represent, arguing that an entire population should not necessarily be judged by the statements or conduct of particular individuals.
When Segal emphasized that Rav Landau was a leading figure in the chareidi world, Smotrich acknowledged his distress over the remarks but reiterated that he would not engage in a direct public confrontation with the Rosh Yeshiva.
His subsequent reference to praying for Rav Landau to do teshuvah became the central focus of the controversy.
Smotrich also used the interview to level broader criticism at the chareidi community’s longstanding opposition to Zionism.
He argued that the success of the Zionist movement and the development of the State of Israel should be understood as evidence of Divine intervention in Jewish history.
“I think the chareidim are ungrateful to Hashem, and we have a sharp disagreement with them over their attitude toward the state and the process of redemption,” Smotrich said.
He went further, questioning how the chareidi worldview could remain unchanged in light of Israel’s achievements.
“I don’t understand how it is possible to be chareidi today. The Zionist enterprise has succeeded. Is there greater proof of redemption than that?” he asked.
Those statements highlighted the longstanding ideological divide between the religious Zionist movement, which generally regards the modern State of Israel as possessing religious significance, and the chareidi worldview, which rejects the identification of the secular Zionist movement with the promised geulah.
Smotrich insisted that his own ideological position was firmly grounded in Torah and would not change because of criticism from chareidi leaders.
He described the religious Zionist approach as one that combines Torah learning with participation in the practical responsibilities of national life, including military service.
Turning to the contentious issue of drafting chareidi men into the IDF, Smotrich argued that the government’s failure to advance proposed conscription legislation approximately two years ago had been a serious mistake.
According to the finance minister, the legislation could have created a framework under which thousands of chareidi men would already have entered the military with the approval of their communal leadership.
He maintained that such a framework would have allowed the government to develop a broader national program for increasing chareidi enlistment while reducing resistance within the community.
Smotrich nevertheless acknowledged that compulsory enlistment could not succeed through coercion alone.
He argued that meaningful change would require persuasion, cooperation, and an approach that recognizes the particular concerns of the chareidi population.
He also expressed appreciation for positive qualities within the chareidi community and praised those individuals who have already taken steps toward military service.
The minister’s comments come amid an increasingly heated national debate over the draft, with chareidi leaders maintaining their opposition to compulsory military service for yeshiva bochurim and government officials facing pressure to address the burden carried by serving soldiers and reservists.
The issue has become a major point of contention ahead of Israel’s November 3 Knesset elections, with parties across the political spectrum attempting to define their positions on military service, Torah learning, and the relationship between religion and the state.
The dispute surrounding Rav Landau has also drawn attention because of his central role in the leadership of Degel HaTorah and his considerable influence over the chareidi political establishment.
Earlier criticism of Rav Landau’s recorded statements prompted explanations from those close to the Rosh Yeshiva that his remarks concerning military operations were being interpreted outside their original halachic context.
Smotrich had previously addressed similar remarks by Rav Landau in July, saying at the time that he faced a difficult dilemma between the need to respond to statements he found objectionable and the obligation to show respect toward talmidei chachomim.
