New Haredi Party Launches in Beit Shemesh, Challenges Established Religious Leadership

The new Haredi political party "The Haredi Public" officially launched its election campaign on Sunday in Beit Shemesh, aiming to represent working Haredim who feel underserved by the traditional ultra-Orthodox parties Shas and United Torah Judaism. The event brought together Haredim from diverse streams, including modern-dress participants alongside those in traditional Hasidic attire, united by a shared sense of political underrepresentation.

Founder Moti Leitner revealed that after months of attempting to join an existing Haredi party and secure representation for working Haredim within Shas or United Torah Judaism, he decided to run independently. In his speech, Leitner sharply criticized the established Haredi leadership for failing to adequately represent their community and address key challenges, especially during recent crises when many Haredim volunteered to assist but felt ignored by detached political leaders.

Leitner also addressed the contentious issue of military service, proposing a new approach: those fully dedicated to Torah study would continue uninterrupted, while others would serve in the Israel Defense Forces. He envisioned not just a Haredi battalion but a full Haredi brigade, alongside a thriving Torah world.

Economic hardship was another major focus, with Leitner highlighting widespread poverty even among working Haredim. He emphasized that poverty is not a Jewish value and pledged to expand educational frameworks, life skills, and vocational training to promote dignified employment and economic independence. Leitner declared the party’s intention to join the next government to implement these solutions collaboratively with broader Israeli society.

Concluding, Leitner stressed the party’s goal to unify all Haredi factions, Sephardim, Ashkenazim, Hasidim, and Litvaks, to overcome internal divisions that foster hatred and alienation. He framed the party’s campaign slogan as a call to replace slogans with solutions, excuses with action, and fear with leadership, contrasting their approach with others who promote confrontation.