 |
| 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concludes that Bnei-Brak is not the city that it was during the lifetime of the Chazon Ish, therefore the promise is no longer valid!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.
We are in the middle of a war — a literal fight for Israel’s survival — and yet President Herzog is insisting that Prime Minister Netanyahu continue appearing in court over allegations that boil down to cigars and a bottle of wine from years ago.
Anyone following the trial knows what’s happening: witness after witness has contradicted earlier claims, and the case is collapsing under its own weight. Herzog is fully aware of this. And still, he pushes for Netanyahu to be dragged back into court, day after day, while he is responsible for running a country at war.
This isn’t about “rule of law.” This isn’t about “ethics.” This is about politics — the same political pressure that has been applied since the moment Netanyahu returned to office.
Herzog comes from the ideological left, and his insistence on keeping the trial alive during wartime serves one purpose: to weaken Netanyahu, distract him, and undermine the government at the very moment Israel needs stability and unity.
You don’t have to agree with Netanyahu on everything to see how absurd this is. No functioning democracy demands that its wartime leader leave the war room to sit in a courtroom over gifts worth less than a weekend vacation.
Israel is fighting on multiple fronts — Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, the international arena — and the idea that the Prime Minister should be pulled away from managing all of this to deal with a trial that is falling apart is beyond irresponsible.
It’s dangerous.
And Israelis see it.
A broad initiative is currently being advanced to completely ban National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir from entering all European Union countries, following the publication of a video in which he is seen together with participants in the pro-Palestinian flotilla to Gaza.
While Ben Gvir visited the detainees, one of the activists shouted, "Free Palestine," before being whisked away by the prison guards. Ben Gvir directly addressed the detainees while waving an Israeli flag, and then said to the camera: "The summer camp is over, whoever acts against the State of Israel will find a determined country, Am Israel Chai."
Meanwhile, Channel 12 News reported that European diplomats are finding that the decision to sanction Ben Gvir is not so simple and is encountering opposition precisely from some of the countries that are less fond of Israel. These countries worry that imposing personal sanctions on Ben Gvir would only strengthen his standing among his supporters and increase his power in Israel’s upcoming elections.
The move is being led, among others, by Italy and France. The Italian Foreign Minister has already announced that he will act to impose EU sanctions against Ben Gvir, and the French Foreign Minister has barred Ben Gvir from entering France.
However, after further consideration - mainly due to the understanding that such a decision would generate international media attention and opposition from countries in the EU that support Israel - the implementation of the move is now in doubt. The greatest concern among those promoting the decision is that while sanctions would be supported internationally, in Israel they would spark a wave of sympathy for Ben Gvir and his party.
Senior officials in the US administration report that President Donald Trump is demanding that Arab countries without ties to Israel - led by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Pakistan - immediately join the Abraham Accords and sign formal peace agreements.
Channel 12 News reported that Trump held a conference call with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, and Bahrain. The original purpose of the call was to secure the support of Sunni states for a deal with Tehran aimed at ending the war.
The various leaders, including UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed - who had previously taken a far more hawkish stance regarding confrontation with Iran - expressed sweeping support for the US president. “They all told him: we’re with you on this deal, and if it doesn’t work, we’ll still be with you," a senior administration official said.
The dramatic turn in the conversation came when Trump directly linked security arrangements with Iran to diplomatic recognition of the State of Israel. According to those present, Trump made clear that once the campaign ends, he expects every country at the table that has not yet done so to open embassies and normalize relations with Israel, while focusing primarily on a historic peace agreement between Saudi Arabia and Israel.
The direct and unexpected demand reportedly stunned some of those on the call, particularly Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Pakistan’s prime minister. “The moment those words were spoken, there was complete and awkward silence on the line. Trump immediately noticed the discomfort, joked aloud, and asked with a smile if they were still with him on the call," a senior official said.
To underscore his seriousness, the president added that he intended to contact Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately and expressed hope that in the near future Netanyahu would join them on the same conference call. He also announced that his special envoys, Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, would begin a dedicated round of talks on the issue in the coming weeks.
Good Luck
