Search
Close this search box.

Jerusalem Court Tells City Hall to Cut Chareidi Education Budget


In this week’s Jerusalem Administrative Court ruling against the city’s chareidi education network, addressing non-state run accepted schools in the chareidi community, the court instructed Jerusalem City Hall to cut chareidi funding, to eliminate a budgetary increase that was approved a number of months ago.

Chareidi schools began the battle about a year ago, seeking a 100% subsidy as opposed to the 75% arrangement that existed prior to the increase. While City Hall approved the move, in no small measure due to the efforts of Yahadut HaTorah MK R’ Moshe Gafne, city attorney and anti-chareidi activist Yossi Chavilov was less than pleased with the mayor’s decision.

The Reform Movement-affiliated Center of Jewish Pluralism turned to the local court as was reported by YWN-Israel earlier in the week, and emerged victoriously, with the court ordering City Hall to revert back to the 75% funding arrangement. Justice Noam Solberg instructed the city that beginning next year, the 2010-2011 school year, the funding for the recognized chareidi schools must return to the 75% arrangement. The court ruled the decision to increase the budget for the chareidi schools exclusively was not one in line with proper government management, and it discriminated against other recognized schools in other sectors.

Chareidi Councilman Shlomo Rosenstein explains he is optimistic, and the court’s decision “is not black and white” and there is a back door that remains open for another hearing. He feels the court was more upset with the process by which the funding decision was made rather than the additional funding being problematic.

(Yechiel Spira – YWN Israel)



4 Responses

  1. Great news!
    Why to fund their schools? when they hate the same people that support them, burn the flag, ignore the siren during Yom haShoa and Yom haZikaron. Let them ask for money from their anti-zionist brothers in chutz la aretz.

  2. What would be the legal grounds to approve such an arrangement? From what this article “simply” says, it sounds like outright discrimination, no?

Leave a Reply


Popular Posts