Leaders of the two Charedi parties in the Knesset met on Tuesday afternoon in order to discuss how to further the Enlistment law that was struck down by the High Court of Justice some three months ago.
The heads of the Shas party, Aryeh Deri and Ariel Attias met together with MK’s Yaakov Litzman, Moshe Gafni and Meir Porush from UTJ. They were joined by attorney Yitzchak Meron who intervened on behalf of the Charedi parties during the legal proceedings surrounding the bill in the High Court of Justice.
The parties still have not decided whether they will try to include the increased reach of the proposed bill, because they fear that the High Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice Esther Hayut, will strike down the bill once again.
An inside source told Kikar Shabbat news service that the party leaders are having a very difficult time in coming up with a phraseology that will be accepted by all the parties in the coalition and still be able to pass the High Court without getting struck down. So far they have not been successful.
(YWN Israel Desk – Jerusalem)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
2 Responses
The only to have an “enlistment” law that does cause rioting is to either prohibit conscription and switch Israel to a professional army (and specifically allow the government and private sector to give benefits limited to veterans and their families without fear of being accused of discrimination against not veterans), or at least to allow for non-zionists to be exempted as conscientious objectors (similar to at least some other non-zionists).
It is a “fools errand” to attempt to find a way to conscript people who have religious objections to army service.
akuperma. where to begin
1. Are you an expert on the security situation on the ground? how in the world do you know that a professional army will provide enough manpower considering that it’s a tiny country surrounded by a billion enemies. Even Moshe Feigelin who suggested this idea (which is far from accepted by the experts) only suggested it with regards to the regular active army but OF COURSE acknowledged the need to have a trained army of ALL CITIZENS in reserves in case global threats should arise. Would you agree to the entire population getting trained and being in the reserves which btw would require follow up training on a yearly basis. If not your suggestion is silly.2. In terms of discrimination with regard to giving benefits to veterans why does that make a difference if Professional or draft?. 3. Your making it sound as if conscientious objectors is a universally accepted practice. in many countries it isn’t allowed and where it is allowed they all require some other type of national service in it’s place. Do you agree to that?