You received word of the missile strike only moments before it happened. What was your first thought?
My first concern was the safety of our people. I was at home in Kfar Saba when I received a message that missiles were incoming. By the time I reached Weizmann, emergency services were already on site. From that moment, the administration’s role was clear: first safety, then continuity—evacuating hazards, stabilizing infrastructure, and only then bringing people back to work, even in provisional spaces.
How did you and your team manage such a complex response across the entire campus?
We divided the work systematically. Each project manager from the Institute’s Construction and Engineering Division was assigned a set of buildings to inspect and evaluate. Their findings were fed into a GIS (geographic information system)-based map with real-time updates, which became the basis for twice-daily status meetings with all the infrastructure heads. That system gave us a clear picture of the damage and allowed us to coordinate progress quickly and effectively.
What contingency plans were in place before June 15, and how effective were they?
We had spent years developing protocols and running drills for different scenarios. After October 2023, we expanded those exercises to include coordination with the IDF’s Home Front Command, even giving them a dedicated space on campus for safety procedures. On June 15 they were already in position, which proved crucial. Just two days earlier, as the escalation with Iran began, we had moved our 24/7 security operations room into a fortified site. That decision alone allowed us to coordinate the response effectively when the strike came.
What were some of the hardest decisions you had to make in those early days?
Knowing that 52 labs and nearly 700 people were suddenly without workspace was daunting. We had to balance urgency with safety, and resources were stretched thin. My approach was to project calm and control—people told me, “The way you’re handling this gives us confidence.” That meant a great deal to me.
How did the “broken windows” theory apply to your response approach?
Visible damage invites further disorder. So, we moved quickly to clean the campus—clearing glass from the roads, removing debris from the lawns, and fencing off the ruined buildings. Broken windows were boarded up, and we managed to source glass and aluminum despite extreme demand. Within a week, about 30 buildings were back in use, even if many repairs were temporary.
The financial toll is staggering. What is the estimated scope?
The damage is around $500M, roughly half in construction costs and half in equipment. The government has provided initial financial coverage, but it’s only a fraction of what is needed. We are working to have the Institute declared as a national strategic asset, which would ensure stronger long-term support [from the state].
Looking back, what stands out to you the most?
The resilience and cooperation of the community. Researchers, staff, and students all went above and beyond what was expected. I also want to commend individuals like Arik Shabat, who coordinated the evacuation of samples with the Home Front Command, and Hagai Friedman, who ensured the welfare of our veterinary facilities under very difficult conditions, both from the Construction and Engineering Division. Their dedication, and that of many others, continues to carry us through.
What is your outlook for the future of Weizmann?
I’m deeply optimistic. The resilience and dedication I’ve seen across campus remind me every day what makes this place unique. With that spirit, I’m certain the Institute will not only recover but continue to inspire and lead in science for years to come.
