Religious Zionism Faces Moral Test Over Draft Law

Dr. Biti Roi is challenging the portrayal of opponents to the Bisumot draft law as instigators and divisive, questioning why the Religious Zionist community struggles to demand changes from its leaders. She argues that responsibility for reservists' families and national security necessitates a clear stance: "Enough is enough." Roi posits that loyalty to Religious Zionism should not compel justification of all right-wing leadership actions, nor silence in the face of reservists' families collapsing under the burden. She invokes the community's educational values of fighting injustice, demanding fairness, and realizing Torah and work principles with responsibility for the vulnerable, not just slogans. Roi contends that demands for change must stem from Religious Zionist values, asserting that not all leadership decisions require assent and not all criticism constitutes betrayal.

Roi questions the efficacy of continued "talks" with the Haredi leadership, noting that years of such discussions have not led to significant Haredi enlistment. She highlights the absence of any initiative from Haredi politicians or yeshiva students to contribute to the war effort, asking if there has been any significant proposal to share the burden or the pain of families.

The current draft law, Roi explains, is problematic because it prioritizes settling the status of yeshiva students whose Torah is their occupation over the security needs of Israel. It allows deferment until age 26 without conditioning this on fulfilling security needs, raising questions about the IDF's ability to rely on enlistment at such an age for urgent needs. The law lacks a mechanism to match recruits to army needs by age, profile, and combat roles, and grants rabbis a central role in determining who enlists, with the IDF not being a full partner in this selection process. Furthermore, setting community goals instead of individual service obligations shifts responsibility from the individual to the community, preserving sectoral distinctions rather than making service a shared norm.

Roi suggests that real change requires tangible incentives for Haredi youth to enlist, such as driver's licenses, travel permissions, or housing assistance, rather than the current framework. The numbers presented in the plan, she notes, are insufficient for changing security needs, with 23,000 Haredi recruits projected over three and a half years, some including national or security service, and a mechanism allowing partial target fulfillment. She questions how many will actually serve in the military, particularly in needed roles. The plan, as presented, fails to create a foundation for change by focusing on regulating existing yeshivas that do not support enlistment, thus maintaining the status quo.

Roi points to alarming demographic trends, with nearly half of Jerusalem's population being Haredi and the Haredi population being significantly younger. Projections suggest Haredim could constitute 40% of 18-year-old Jews in Israel within twenty years. She stresses that Israel cannot wait for the Haredi community to make a move that has not materialized. This is not a left-right issue or a fight against the Haredi public, but a question of mutual responsibility, security, and the nation's future. Roi concludes that Religious Zionism, with its values of Torah and work, national commitment, and mutual guarantee, should lead the demand for change, not out of alienation from the Haredi public, but out of concern for Israel's security, the future of the Jewish people, and the Torah values they were raised on. True brotherhood, she states, cannot exist when the burden of defense repeatedly falls on the same shoulders. Every public representative should be asked about their stance on the draft law, as it affects security, the future, and the values by which Israelis wish to live.