Uncategorized
Defense rests in Pittsburgh synagogue shooting trial without calling witnesses or presenting evidence
PITTSBURGH (JTA) — Defense attorneys in the trial of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter will not be calling witnesses or presenting evidence in court, following 11 days of harrowing testimony from witnesses called by the prosecution.
The defense attorneys’ choice underscores their acknowledgement that their client committed the attack. Since the beginning of the trial, lead defense attorney Judy Clarke has made clear that her goal is to prevent the shooter, Robert Bowers, from being sentenced to death.
Judge Robert Colville dismissed the jury on Wednesday and told jurors to return on Thursday to hear closing arguments, after which the jury will deliberate and deliver its verdict. The defendant is almost certain to be found guilty, and his sentence — which will be determined in the next phase of the trial — will depend on whether the jury finds him guilty on all 63 counts he faces or just some of them. Of those charges, 22 carry the death penalty — two for each of his 11 victims.
The anticlimactic conclusion of the proceedings on Wednesday followed 11 days of graphic testimony from congregants and emergency responders who were present when the gunman perpetrated the shooting in Pittsburgh’s Squirrel Hill neighborhood on Oct. 27, 2018. The synagogue he attacked housed three congregations: Tree of Life, New Light and Dor Hadash.
Witnesses have described how the shooting unfolded, detail by tragic detail — and have explained the Jewish rituals and practices interrupted and desecrated by the attack. Other witnesses, including 911 call center employees and law enforcement, have recounted how they responded to the shooting.
Clarke and her team have cross-examined witnesses but revealed on Thurday that they would not be calling any of their own.
“We have no evidence,” Clarke said after Colville turned to her following the prosecution’s last witness. In her opening remarks on May 30, Clark had said that the defense team would not contest that its client committed the shooting.
“There is no disagreement, there is no dispute and there will be no doubt as to who shot the 11 congregants,” she said then. “On Oct. 27, 2018, Robert Bowers, the man seated at that table, loaded with ammunition and firearms entered the synagogue.”
Clarke is famous for keeping her clients off of death row and hopes to achieve the same result here. Her argument to jurors is that her client targeted the congregants not because of their religion, but because of a delusion that they were facilitating an immigration invasion to replace white people.
“We can at least do our best to uphold the rule of law by figuring out, to the best of our ability, what were Mr. Bowers’ motives and intent,” Clarke said in her opening statement.
The prosecution wrapped up its case before lunch on Wednesday with testimony from Andrea Wedner, one of two worshippers who were injured by gunfire in the shooting and survived. Wedner was with her mother, Rose Mallinger, when the gunman entered the chapel. Mallinger, who was 97, was killed in the attack.
Acting U.S. Attorney Troy Rivetti asked Wedner if the gunman had kept her from worshipping — the same question the prosecution has posed to other survivors who took the stand.
That question is key to half of the 22 capital charges the gunman faces: Federal law allows the death penalty in cases “of obstruction in free exercise of religious belief resulting in death.” The other 11 capital charges are for hate crimes resulting in death.
“Did you go there to worship and pray?” Rivetti asked Wedner. “Did the defendant prevent you from praying? Did the defendant come into the chapel and shoot you? Your mother, Rose Mallinger, who prayed the prayer for peace each week, was shot right next to you?”
Wedner answered “Yes” each time, with increasing emotion.
The defense rarely objected during the trial, only doing so to argue that testimony was inappropriately veering into how American Jews worship, or into what animates Jewish practice. Nearly all of the defense’s objections during the trial were overruled.
After the jury exited the courtroom on Wednesday, the defense continued arguing that their client did not seek to kill Jews while they worshipped. Speaking before the judge, defense attorneys raised objections to the phrasing of some of the charges the jury would consider.
They tried, as they had previously, to have the words “willfully” and “because of actual or perceived religion” removed from the 11 capital charges that have to do with obstruction of worship resulting in death. Colville overruled the objections.
Wedner asked not to be on the stand when the prosecution played back her 911 call from the day of the shooting in court. Instead, Rivetti asked her a series of questions about the call before she left the chamber.
“Have you actually requested that we not play that 911 call while you’re on the stand?” Rivetti asked.
“Yes,” Wedner said.
“Is that because you can hear yourself being shot?”
“Yes.”
“Is it because you can hear your mother’s quiet voice as you try to comfort her?”
“Yes.”
“Is it because you can hear her being shot?”
“Yes.” Wedner’s voice cracked.
The recording of the call played out as Rivetti had described: Werner’s whispered pleadings to a 911 operator, silence, and then two gun blasts and screams. Rivetti stopped the replay about halfway through the 9-minute recording.
During her testimony, Wedner described sensing police were in the sanctuary, and moving her legs to signal she was alive. “They were in fatigues so I knew they were the good guys,” she said.
She rose and realized she was the lone survivor in the sanctuary where the Tree of Life congregation regularly convened.
Before she left, she bid her mother goodbye.
“I kissed my fingers and I touched my fingers to her skin,” she said. “I cried out, ‘Mommy.’”
—
The post Defense rests in Pittsburgh synagogue shooting trial without calling witnesses or presenting evidence appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
A quiet diplomatic shift in the Middle East, with monumental consequences for Israel
Something significant is happening between Israel and Syria, and it deserves more attention than it is getting.
With the backing of the United States, Israeli and Syrian officials have agreed to create what they call a “joint fusion mechanism” — a permanent channel for coordination on intelligence, de-escalation, diplomacy and economic matters — during meetings in Paris. It appears to be the beginning of institutionalized contact between two countries that have formally been at war since 1948.
If this process continues, it will count as a genuine foreign-policy success for President Donald Trump’s administration.
To understand how profound that change would be, it is worth recalling the two countries’ shared history.
Israel and Syria — which the U.S. struck with a set of targeted attacks on the Islamic State on Saturday — have fought openly or by proxy for decades. Before 1967, Syrian artillery positions in the Golan Heights regularly shelled Israeli communities in the Hula Valley and around the Sea of Galilee. After Israel captured that region in 1967, the direct shelling stopped, but the conflict did not.
Syria remained formally committed to a state of war; Israel entrenched itself in the Golan Heights; both sides treated the frontier as a potential flashpoint to be managed carefully. After Egypt and Israel made peace in 1979, Syria became Israel’s most dangerous neighboring state.
A 1974 disengagement agreement created a United Nations-monitored buffer zone, which mostly ensured peace along the border, but did not resolve anything fundamental. In Lebanon, Israel and Syria backed opposing forces for years, and their air forces clashed briefly during the 1982 Lebanon War. Later, Iran’s growing role in Syria and Hezbollah’s military buildup added new threats. The Syrian civil war then destroyed basic state capacity and created precisely the kind of militia-rich environment Israel fears along its borders.
Now, with the dictator Bashar al-Assad gone and the former rebel leader Ahmed al-Sharaa in power, Syria is a broken country trying to stabilize. Sharaa’s past associations, disturbingly, include leadership of jihadist groups that were part of the wartime landscape in Syria. But today he governs a state facing economic collapse, infrastructure ruin and a population that needs jobs and basic services. His incentives are simple and powerful: ensure the survival of his regime, invite foreign investment, and secure relief from isolation and sanctions. Those goals point toward the U.S. and its partners, including Israel.
The Trump administration has made it clear that it wants to see new Syrian cooperation with Israel, with the suggestion that progress with Israel will become a gateway to international investment, and to a degree of political acceptance that Syria has lacked for years. Al-Sharaa’s willingness to engage is therefore not a mystery.
Israel’s motivations are also straightforward. After the Gaza war, Israel is facing a severe reputational problem. It is widely viewed abroad as reckless and excessively militarized. The government is under pressure over not only the conduct of the war but also the perception that it has no political strategy and relies almost exclusively on force. A diplomatic track with Syria allows Israel to present a very different picture: that of a country capable of negotiations with ideologically opposed neighbors, de-escalation, and regional cooperation.
There are significant security incentives, too.
Israel wants to limit Iran and Hezbollah’s influence in Syria. It wants a predictable northern border. It wants assurances regarding the Druze population in southern Syria — brethren to the Israeli Druze who are extremely loyal to the state, and who were outraged after a massacre of Syrian Druze followed the installation of al-Sharaa’s regime. It wants to ensure that no armed Syrian groups will tread near the Golan. A coordinated mechanism supervised by the U.S. offers a strong diplomatic way to address these issues.
The U.S. will benefit as well. The Trump team is eager to show that it can deliver lasting diplomatic achievements in the Middle East after the success of the Abraham Accords in Trump’s first term. A meaningful shift in Israel–Syria relations would be a very welcome addition, especially as the U.S.-brokered ceasefire in the Gaza war faces an uncertain future.
The main questions now are practical. Can the “joint fusion mechanism” function under pressure? What will happen when there is, almost inevitably, an incident — a drone downed, a militia clash, a cross-border strike? Will the new system effectively lower the temperature, or will it collapse at the first crisis?
Will Iran — facing its own profound internal political crisis — accept a Syria that coordinates with Israel under U.S. supervision, or will it work to undermine al-Sharaa? How will Hezbollah react if Damascus appears to move away from the axis of “resistance” and toward a security understanding with Israel?
How would an Israel-Syria deal impact Lebanon’s moribund efforts to dismantle Hezbollah’s military capacity? Al-Sharaa has already helped significantly by ending the transfer of weapons to Hezbollah from Iran through his territory. Might he also actively help with the disarming of the group?
No one should expect a full peace treaty soon. The question of possession of the Golan Heights probably remains a deal-breaker. Public opinion in Syria has been shaped by decades of official hostility to Israel, and Israeli politics is fragmented and volatile.
But diplomatic breakthroughs can confound expectations. They usually begin with mechanisms like this one, involving limited cooperation, routine contact and crisis management.
If this effort helps move the border from a zone of permanent tension to one of managed stability, that alone would be a major shift. It would also send a signal beyond the region: U.S. engagement still matters, and American pressure and incentives can still change behavior.
The post A quiet diplomatic shift in the Middle East, with monumental consequences for Israel appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Israel’s Netanyahu Hopes to ‘Taper’ Israel Off US Military Aid in Next Decade
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks to the press on Capitol Hill, Washington, DC, July 8, 2025. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in an interview published on Friday that he hopes to “taper off” Israeli dependence on US military aid in the next decade.
Netanyahu has said Israel should not be reliant on foreign military aid but has stopped short of declaring a firm timeline for when Israel would be fully independent from Washington.
“I want to taper off the military within the next 10 years,” Netanyahu told The Economist. Asked if that meant a tapering “down to zero,” he said: “Yes.”
Netanyahu said he told President Donald Trump during a recent visit that Israel “very deeply” appreciates “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.”
In December, Netanyahu said Israel would spend 350 billion shekels ($110 billion) on developing an independent arms industry to reduce dependency on other countries.
In 2016, the US and Israeli governments signed a memorandum of understanding for the 10 years through September 2028 that provides $38 billion in military aid, $33 billion in grants to buy military equipment and $5 billion for missile defense systems.
Israeli defense exports rose 13 percent last year, with major contracts signed for Israeli defense technology including its advanced multi-layered aerial defense systems.
US Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a staunch Israel supporter and close ally of Trump, said on X that “we need not wait ten years” to begin scaling back military aid to Israel.
“The billions in taxpayer dollars that would be saved by expediting the termination of military aid to Israel will and should be plowed back into the US military,” Graham said. “I will be presenting a proposal to Israel and the Trump administration to dramatically expedite the timetable.”
Uncategorized
In Rare Messages from Iran, Protesters ask West for Help, Speak of ‘Very High’ Death Toll
Protests in Tehran. Photo: Iran Photo from social media used in accordance with Clause 27a of the Copyright Law, via i24 News
i24 News – Speaking to Western media from beyond the nationwide internet blackout imposed by the Islamic regime, Iranian protesters said they needed support amid a brutal crackdown.
“We’re standing up for a revolution, but we need help. Snipers have been stationed behind the Tajrish Arg area [a neighborhood in Tehran],” said a protester in Tehran speaking to the Guardian on the condition of anonymity. He added that “We saw hundreds of bodies.”
Another activist in Tehran spoke of witnessing security forces firing live ammunition at protesters resulting in a “very high” number killed.
On Friday, TIME magazine cited a Tehran doctor speaking on condition of anonymity that just six hospitals in the capital recorded at least 217 killed protesters, “most by live ammunition.”
Speaking to Reuters on Saturday, Setare Ghorbani, a French-Iranian national living in the suburbs of Paris, said that she became ill from worry for her friends inside Iran. She read out one of her friends’ last messages before losing contact: “I saw two government agents and they grabbed people, they fought so much, and I don’t know if they died or not.”