While at this point I won’t divulge all the information that I was made privy to, I feel that there is a need to expose at least some of the terroristic tactics being employed against those who support the establishment of an eruv. Additionally, I think there is a need for certain people to realize that the velt iz nisht hefker, and there is din v’chesbon. I was told by people who are documenting all the dirty tactics that are being practiced in this controversy that they will eventually expose all of them. I will just mention, without much commentary, a few incidents that just happened lately.
One rebbe in Eretz Yisroel is being pressured by a Kedassia rav from Golders Green to compel his dayanim in Stamford Hill not to support the eruv. This Chassidus is also being blackmailed that if they don’t sign against the eruv, their members who own stores in the neighborhood will be boycotted. They are also being enticed with offers that Kedassia will start using this kehilla’s hechsher if they join against the eruv. [Until now Kedassia claimed that the reason why they did not use this hechsher was that it was not mehadrin enough, but I guess once they sign against the eruv, the hechsher will automatically turn into a mehadrin one.]
The main rav opposing the eruv protested to a rebbe in Eretz Yisroel that one of his chashuva Chasidim, a resident of Stamford Hill, is the main supporter of the eruv and was bringing in outside rabbanim to give a hechsher on the eruv. This rav argued that the Chasid was undermining his rabbanus and that the rebbe should rein him in. Great pressure was imposed on this Chasid to desist in his actions.
As I predicted, the fight against the eruv in Stamford Hill will make all the other instances of machlokas there pale in comparison. The extent to which some are willing to go to be mevatel a mitzvah d’rabbanan is astounding. I will add that since they are impeding a mitzvah d’rabbanan there is no greater chillul Hashem, and b'mokom sheyeish chillul Hashem ein cholkim kovod l'rav (Shulchan Aruch, Y.D. siman 242:11).