Ultra-Orthodox Election Results Show Faith in Leadership, Not Mandates
Translated & summarized from JDN by baba
Ultra-Orthodox parties face potential disappointment as election results suggest a unity government, diminishing their political leverage. However, the author argues this outcome might be the "lesser of two evils," potentially allowing legislation to pass the Supreme Court. The true success, according to the piece, lies in the increased number of Haredi voters and their demonstrated loyalty to rabbinical leadership, reinforcing the community's commitment to Torah above all else.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Ultra-Orthodox parties may lose leverage in a potential unity government, disappointing the community.
- A unity government could paradoxically help pass Haredi-related legislation by avoiding Supreme Court challenges.
- The number of Haredi voters increased significantly, demonstrating loyalty to rabbinical leadership.
- New Haredi parties attempting innovation failed, reinforcing the authority of established leaders.
- The elections underscored the Haredi commitment to Torah as their primary guiding principle.
As the final seat counts in the recent elections become clearer, a sense of disappointment is emerging within the ultra-Orthodox community, with the prospect of a broad unity government appearing increasingly likely. Such governments typically disadvantage the Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) parties, as neither the secular right nor the secular left would need their support to form a coalition. However, the author argues that in the current difficult climate, a unity government might be the "lesser of two evils" for the Haredi sector.
The reasoning suggests that any legislation proposed by the right to regulate the status of Haredi citizens would likely be disqualified by the Supreme Court, particularly under Justice Solberg, who is perceived as catering to the left. Conversely, legislation from the left would face strong opposition from the right, especially concerning military conscription. A unity government, the article posits, could potentially pass a law that, while perhaps not ideal, would not be struck down by the Supreme Court, thus bringing stability.
Furthermore, the author notes that a unity government would avoid the need for Haredi leaders to make difficult decisions, as their consent would not be required. This situation is compared to the unity government of 2013, when a controversial law was passed, but ultimately provided temporary relief. The article questions the necessity of holding elections if such outcomes are predetermined.
The piece then pivots to address the election results, suggesting that the number of voters, rather than parliamentary mandates, is the true measure of success. While the Haredi bloc may have lost seats, this is attributed to an "optical illusion" caused by a dramatic increase in Arab voter turnout, which dilutes the impact of Haredi votes on a per-mandate basis. The number of Haredi voters, however, has reportedly increased significantly, with the decline in Shas's votes linked to issues in the periphery.
Crucially, the author emphasizes that the "sanctification of God's name" was demonstrated through the Haredi public's adherence to the directives of their senior rabbis. New Haredi parties attempting to introduce innovative approaches failed, as the established Haredi public proved its unwavering loyalty to its leadership. This outcome, the article concludes, sends a clear message that attempts to bypass or undermine the authority of Haredi leaders will be unsuccessful, regardless of financial investment. The elections, in this view, served to underscore the Haredi commitment to Torah above all other considerations.
