Legal Hurdles Cloud Ultra-Orthodox Draft Exemption Deal
Translated & summarized from N12 by baba
Israeli "change bloc" parties are negotiating draft exemption agreements with ultra-Orthodox parties, considering proposals from 2018 and an "override clause." Legal experts doubt these plans will pass the High Court of Justice due to changing judicial perspectives and the army's urgent need for soldiers. Proposals would need strict targets, financial sanctions for non-compliance, and clear definitions for yeshiva students to have any chance of approval.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Legal experts question the viability of draft exemption proposals for ultra-Orthodox Israelis in Israel's High Court.
- A 2018 proposal by Avigdor Lieberman and an "override clause" are central to current negotiations.
- The High Court's stance has hardened due to prolonged inaction and the army's critical personnel shortages.
- Any approved plan would require strict draft targets, financial sanctions, and clear definitions for exemptions.
- An "override clause" is unlikely to prevent the High Court from invalidating a controversial draft exemption law.
Negotiations between Israel's "change bloc" and ultra-Orthodox parties, primarily United Torah Judaism, are currently focused on the issue of draft exemptions. Two main proposals are on the table: one from former Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman dating back to 2018, and a demand to halt arrests of yeshiva students, coupled with a proposal for an "override clause" to exempt from conscription.
Legal experts express skepticism about these proposals' chances of passing judicial review at the High Court of Justice (Bagatz). Attorney Shlomit Ravitz-Turetzky Paz, Director of the Center for Shared Society at the Israel Democracy Institute, notes that the court's perspective has shifted due to the passage of time, a lack of increase in ultra-Orthodox enlistment, and the army's critical personnel needs. She stated that the court has waited 30 years for internal changes within the Haredi community to lead to integration and enlistment, realizing this approach is ineffective. Ravitz-Turetzky Paz emphasized that the army's deficit of approximately 12,000 soldiers, including 7,500 combat troops, makes the inequality in draft exemptions unacceptable, especially when it impacts life and limb.
To gain High Court approval, any similar arrangement would likely need to include specific annual draft targets for the ultra-Orthodox community, with civilian service being strictly security-related and limited in scope compared to military service. Financial sanctions against yeshivas would need to be legislated if targets are missed for three consecutive years. The court may accept a law based on draft targets rather than a universal conscription duty, provided these targets are sufficient to meet the army's needs. Furthermore, a clear and narrow definition of who qualifies as a yeshiva student is required, along with an effective oversight mechanism to ensure accurate reporting of student attendance and study. Ravitz-Turetzky Paz suggested that a temporary, limited-term statute might have a higher chance of approval.
Professor Adam Shinar, a constitutional law lecturer at Reichman University, believes that even enshrining draft exemptions in a Basic Law or adding an override clause would not guarantee immunity from High Court invalidation. He explained that since the Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation was enacted in 1994, legal doctrines have evolved, allowing the court to strike down Basic Laws in certain circumstances, particularly if a new arrangement severely infringes upon equality or undermines the state's democratic and Jewish foundations. Shinar also suggested that an override clause would offer limited benefit, primarily delaying the process until a court ruling, potentially with an interim order.
Mentioned
