Saudi Analyst Claims Riyadh Leading New Regional Bloc Against Israeli Influence
The US military launched “self-defense strikes” against Iranian boats that were reportedly laying mines in the Strait of Hormuz Monday, according to Central Command.
CENTCOM spokesperson Capt. Tim Hawkins said US military “eliminated” two Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps boats that were seen setting mines in the strait, and also took out a surface-to-air missile site in Bandar Abbas, according to Fox News.
The missile site based at Iran’s primary naval station was reportedly targeting US warplanes, Hawkins said. He insisted that the “self-defense strikes” were conducted “to protect our troops from threats posed by Iranian forces.”
“U.S. Central Command continues to defend our forces while using restraint during the ongoing ceasefire,” Hawkins said in a statement obtained by the outlet.
The US strikes — and mine-laying efforts by the IRGC — are both violations of a tenuous cease-fire that appears on the cusp of being extended after a framework to end the Iran war surfaced following whirlwind negotiations over the weekend.
The tentative deal between Washington and Tehran, which was brokered by Pakistan, would reopen the strait without tolls, end the fighting for 60 days and begin a short window to negotiate an end to the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.
Tehran would also clear the mines it had deployed at the strait’s checkpoint and allow ships to pass freely, according to parameters of the agreement, according to Axios.
In return, the US would lift its blockade on Iranian ports and waive some sanctions against the Iranian regime – allowing Tehran to sell oil again.
Trump issues fresh Strait of Hormuz threat, says there can’t be a deal with Iran unless ‘the rest of their country’ is blown up
Iran releases video purporting to show commandos seizing ships in Strait of Hormuz
Three vessels hit by Iranian fire in Strait of Hormuz hours after Trump extends cease-fire
US Navy destroyer ‘blows a hole’ through Iranian cargo ship that tried to break Hormuz blockade, Trump says
Iran War negotiations will resume this week, Trump tells The Post — despite new attacks on Hormuz
Strait of Hormuz ‘completely open’ as Trump celebrates tumbling oil prices, rips into NATO as ‘Paper Tiger’
President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio separately warned that the deal wasn’t finalized though.
A senior Trump administration official previously told The Post that the president may opt out if Tehran doesn’t commit to his terms, including a hardline on the nuclear program.
Several other explosions were reported close to Sirik and Jask, two coastal cities along the strait and Gulf of Oman, respectively, earlier Monday.
The Tel Aviv Rabbinic Court has ordered a get (divorce document) to be given to S. after a long struggle with her husband, a famous personality, who refused to divorce her for four years.
The decision came after the court posed an ultimatum to the husband, that if he did not grant the get, harsh legal and financial sanctions would be considered. Among the sanctions on the table were the termination of his employment with his employer and the publication of his name in public.
The couple married 22 years ago and had children during their time together. Four years ago, they separated, but, according to the wife, the husband refused to grant the halachic divorce and demanded significant monetary concessions in exchange, while using verbal and economic violence.
In recent years, the woman resided overseas, and last summer, she decided to reach out to Or Torah Stone's "Yad La’isha" organization, which represents those whose husbands refuse to grant a get.
Attorney and rabbinic advocate Tehila Cohen, who represents the woman in the process, asked the court to apply direct pressure on the get refuser.
She asked that his place of work fire him and that his identity be cleared for publication to end his refusal. Later in the hearings, the husband's employer appeared before the court to consider the possible steps.
The judge, Rabbi Shlomo Shtessman, notified the husband that he was to issue the get by April 30th. The judge made clear that if he did not do so, he would consider the attorney's request for sanctions positively.
According to sources involved in the case, a short time before the ultimatum expired, the husband announced that he was prepared to grant the get and appointed a messenger to deliver it to his wife.
On Thursday, the wife officially received her get at the Tel Aviv Rabbinic Court after arriving in Israel to complete the process.
Cohen stated: "We are witnesses to another case that proves that only uncompromising and unequivocal action against get refusers is the key to quickly free get refusees."
 |
| Bnei-Brak Under Attack |
 |
| Rabbi of "Ohr Chadash" Ramot, Jerusalem; rabbinical judge and legal scholar. Teaches at Yeshivas Chedvas HaTorah and at Hebrew University, heads the Iyun Institute, founder and editor-in-chief of "Tzarich Iyun". |
DIN: My readers already know my position, that the Chazon Ish did in fact make that "havtacha" that Bnei-Brak will never be bombed (though it did get bombed in his lifetime) and he was mistaken. It doesn't make the Chazon Ish less holy or less of a tzaddik. The author of the article concludes that Bnei-Brak is not the city that it was during the lifetime of the Chazon Ish, therefore the promise is no longer valid! I don't agree, I think that it is even holier! How many people learned Torah during the Chazon Ish's lifetime, and how many now!? I think that the Chazon Ish's promise did not stand the test of time, and neither did the promise of the Gerer Rebbe survive, who foolishly said "that Arad would never be bombed and there was no need to go to shelters!"
The Chazon Ish’s promise that no missiles would fall on Bnei Brak was far more than a local saying: it expressed a Haredi consciousness of a distinct community, protected by the power of Torah and not subject to the ordinary rules of safety. The evolution of that promise, until it began to crack in the face of reality, represents Haredi society’s own maturation, compelled to ask not only what happened to the promise, but what happened to us.
The Chazon Ish’s promise that no bombs or missiles would fall on Bnei Brak is among the best-known and most consequential statements in the city’s Charedi memory. For decades, it existed not merely as a line cited from time to time, but as a deep layer of local consciousness: an expression of Bnei Brak’s character, its spiritual stature, and the distinct self-understanding of a public that saw itself as living under a different order of protection — one grounded in Torah, sanctity, and the merit of the righteous. In this sense, the promise did not concern only the question of what would fall, and where. It concerned the question of what Bnei Brak is.
That is precisely why the story of the promise matters so much. Not because of the historical details concerning its exact wording or the circumstances in which it was uttered, but because over time it became a fact of consciousness. It was received as a statement of deep public significance, one that shaped the city’s sense of distinction, its self-image, and at times even its residents’ attitudes toward danger, protection, and responsibility. The changing fortunes of the promise thus illuminate not only the promise itself but also the transformations that have occurred in Bnei Brak and in Charedi society as a whole.
The changing fortunes of the promise thus illuminate not only the promise itself but also the transformations that have occurred in Bnei Brak and in Charedi society as a whole.
In this essay, I wish to examine the story of “the Chazon Ish’s promise” not only on its own terms, but also as a parable.
I will first consider how the promise became fixed in Charedi consciousness, and the different ways it was explained when reality began to unsettle it.
I will then propose two lines of interpretation:
the first, internal to the Charedi world, sees the changes that have taken place in Bnei Brak and in Charedi society as the key to understanding the weakening of the promise’s force;
the second, a Charedi-Israeli reading, sees the entire story as an expression of a deeper historical transition — from a small and separate public to a large and central one, a public that can no longer think of itself in terms of a self-contained community alone. I will then argue that the evolution of the promise casts new light on the evolution of the Charedi public itself.
