Rabbi Michi,
Sorry, but this is a bad and foolish post that should be deleted immediately.
It is shallow and lowers the level of the forum.

Elchanan, maybe instead of remarking to Rabbi Michi, you could offer an alternative answer that is “deep” and not “shallow”?

Haredim as a society have a very fundamentalist way of thinking. Every small step that appears to threaten their ideology is seen as a sign of destruction, a cause for war and excommunication. Whether it is a ruling that permits military enlistment, even if only for certain people; whether it is the opening of a yeshiva that offers young people a chance to complete their matriculation exams, in which case those who establish it are considered spiritual murderers of future generations; or whether it is an incidental quote from Wiesel, Mendelssohn, or one of those people that turns out to appear in a book by one of the great rabbis of the generations.
Of course, I am not saying that everyone would go out and murder over such things, or would be violent. But this mindset really does characterize large and devout parts of that society, especially the Torah elite there.
Therefore it is easier for them, from time to time, to deteriorate into a state of actual physical violent anarchy in the yeshivas. Even though it is reprehensible. That is what I think. Also, as far as I know, according to the Haredim themselves. And I do not think there is any mainstream halakhic decisor or rabbi there who would permit violence in a yeshiva, or violence בכלל.

It seems to me that other streams that have the same way of thinking, such as Har Hamor, or Torat HaChaim Yeshiva of Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh, where too every step that deviates from the plan to bring redemption creates endless hysteria, also fit this pattern. Yoval Cherlow is a thoroughly wicked man who is trying to introduce the blurring of differences between the sexes because he permitted shaking a woman’s hand. Bringing children’s books from the secular world, such as the Pajama Library program, is a plot by Christians and Reform Jews, and so on. With Ginsburgh, for example, redemption is measured in very specific steps and according to a precise plan broken down into fine detail. And it is likely that if one of his devout students, in another generation or two, sees voices that somewhat interfere with that plan, violence will begin to erupt.
So this is not something, Benjamin, that maybe as you would like to think, can happen only among Haredim, and not even only among religious people. Among secular or anti-religious ideologues too, you can see very emphatic calls for violence: against Haredim, who should be shut up in their own cities and have their freedom of movement restricted; against settlers, who are little Hitlerists who will bring upon us a second Holocaust.
And so on and so on. Believe me, if these intellectuals whose words I am quoting had a large and significant following, violence from that side would certainly arise too.

Sorry, correction:
not that they will bring upon us a second Holocaust, but that they will cause a Holocaust here in the Land of Israel.

With God’s help, 30 Sivan 5780
The sad story of Ponevezh stems from the unusual situation in which two yeshivas are holding onto one building, and the constant friction is unavoidable. In other places, they simply split. And each one “comes peacefully to his own place.”
Regards, S.Z.

Apparently there is no established possessor there, and therefore it is like that case of the boat where we apply the rule: whoever is stronger prevails.

With God’s help, 30 Sivan 5780
To Ramda — greetings,
There the problem is that both sides are in established possession, but perhaps he holds that this is a case of seizure after the doubt arose 🙂
In any case, I will mention here, “by way of wit,” the question of Rabbi Shlomo Goren in his introduction to a general lecture on tractate Bava Batra, which he delivered at Merkaz HaRav Yeshiva in the winter of 1980.
Rabbi Goren said: From Choshen Mishpat I know that the best thing is to be the “established possessor.” But from the ethics books I learn that the worst trait is anger.
And I do not understand. Either way: if you are the “established possessor,” then you win even without getting angry; and if you are not the “established possessor,” then getting angry will not help you. So why anger at all?
And this requires further study to settle 🙂
Regards, S.Z.

“Established possessor” of a knife!!!
https://mobile.kikar.co.il/article/364753

A Haredi yeshiva is something worth fighting over….