The conflict that has raged in Gaza since October 7 has riven Israeli society. People are deeply divided over the government’s conduct of the war and the failure to secure the release of the remaining hostages. As a result, the government of Benjamin Netanyahu is bitterly unpopular with the majority of people and is itself deeply divided.
So the decision by Israel’s supreme court that ultra-Orthodox Jewish men must be drafted into military service after being exempted from conscription since Israel was founded is a bombshell which is bound to further destabilise the Netanyahu government. John Strawson, an expert in Israeli politics at the University of East London, addresses some key questions.
Why were ultra-Orthodox Haredi men exempt from military service that was mandatory from everyone else?
The exemption stems from the founding of the state of Israel in 1948. David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister made an arrangement with the then relatively small ultra-Orthodox community so that they could focus on study and prayer while the vast majority of citizens could get on with building the state – including, of course, the Israel Defense Force (IDF).
At the time it is thought there were a few hundred people involved. The status quo, as it became called, has become increasingly untenable as the numbers of the ultra-Orthodox community have grown. There are now some 60,000 young people affected.
Why has the supreme court decided that this should change now?
There have been many challenges to the exemption over the past 25 years. This particular case began seven years ago. Last year the current arrangement was deemed to be unlawful, and the government was ordered to recruit from the Haredi community or introduce a new law to govern exemptions.
Now the supreme court has unanimously ruled the failure to do either is unlawful. The decision of course was delivered after nearly nine months of fighting in Gaza which has seen a significant death toll and many series injuries. It has also seen the disruption of normal life for hundreds of thousands of Israelis who are on reserve.
Don’t forget all Israelis, both men and women are conscripted at 18 and then spend a couple of decades in the reserves. That involves engaging in regular training each year and, in times of conflict, reporting for combat duties.
The majority of Israelis feel that they carry a major burden which the Haredi community evades – not only not serving but studying in taxpayer-funded Yeshivas. Israel’s supreme court clearly seems to agree.
Some ultra-orthodox Jews already serve in the military – but these are special units. What’s different about them?
It’s important to grasp that the majority of religious Israelis do serve in the IDF. Most of the Haredi community we are talking about are represented by the political parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism (UTJ), who are not just concerned about service as such but the fact that these insular communities will be exposed to secular Israel culture.
In response the IDF has created a small number of units which have a religious atmosphere and commanders who understand Haredi culture.
How powerful is the ultra-Orthodox lobby in Israel?
The community is about 10%-13% of the population. But, thanks to their political representation they have much greater significance. For most of Israel’s 76 years, parties representing the Haredi community have been in the government. The Sephardi orthodox Shas, for example was even in the Rabin government formed in 1992 alongside the left-wing and decidedly secular Meretz party.
But over the past 30 years there has been a drift to the right and both Shas and UTJ have been integral to the coalition keeping Netanyahu in power.
As partners in so many coalitions over the years, these parties have been able to insist that their participation in government comes at the price of state support for their activities, including maintaining a school system, housing projects and the network of yeshivas.
As a result, they have been able to create “a state within the state”. Haredi areas look and feel quite unlike the rest of Israel. This division in Jewish Israeli society is highlighted by the supreme court judgment.
What does this decision mean for the future of Netanyahu’s coalition?
The Netanyahu coalition is inherently unstable and supreme court’s intervention will add another fracture. It certainly threatens the coalition. But Netanyahu is a master at dealing with warring coalitions – which is why he has become Israel’s longest-serving prime minister.
He is working on drafting a new bill to reach some sort of compromise – although it is unlikely to be compatible with the supreme court’s clear ruling that any exemption from service by a community, constitutes discrimination.
The prime minister will, as always, play for time. But time is a luxury Netanyahu does not have, as the supreme court ruled that it will be unlawful for the government to fund Yeshivas that don’t allow recruitment.
The defence minister, Yoav Gallant, has made it clear that he agrees with the supreme court and has voted in the Knesset against Netanyahu’s proposals. How long Shas, UTJ and secular factions represented by Gallant can remain in the same government is now the critical issue.
Do you foresee any campaigns of civil disobedience? How divided is Israeli society over this issue?
There are divisions within the Haredi community on how to deal with the judgment. Some has suggested Haredi youngsters should leave the country. Some that there should be mass resistance. Others cling on to faith in Netanyahu to find a compromise. But I think it will be the active demands of the majority of Israelis that will prevail.
One of the parties taking the case to the court was Brothers and Sisters for Israel which is a large NGO of reservists formed to fight Netanyahu’s attack on the judiciary. They now form one of the most significant organisations providing aid to displaced Israelis – and to the IDF.
Having met some of their representatives I am sure they will not let the issue drop and what’s more they have the experience and capacity to mobilise.
John Strawson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
