Was it a draft-evasion law or a real draft law? The outgoing Knesset's failure to pass the bill is often described as a failed chareidi maneuver. It may also be a missed opportunity, at least for now. Either way, change from within chareidi society has already begun. The question is how quickly it will mature, and what can move it forward.
To judge whether the draft law would have helped or hurt chareidi enlistment, you have to understand how change happens in chareidi society. Look closely, and you'll see that unlike past attempts to integrate chareidim into the IDF, this time there is real potential. The question is whether the state will let that change succeed.
Start with the positions and the reality that already exist.
A significant number of rabbis, leaders and communities in chareidi society support a two-part arrangement. Yeshiva students' status would be formally settled, and chareidim would be integrated into the IDF in a careful, supervised way that preserves a fully Torah-observant life. These leaders believe this is the right way to resolve the current conflict. As long as the IDF can create frameworks suited to chareidi society, they see no reason to keep the old reality in place, and chareidi men who work rather than study full-time should be allowed to enlist. This view has broader support than the media suggests. It isn't limited to more liberal communities. It is also held by conservative communities that are meticulous about every detail of halacha, yet still support changing the status quo.
On top of that, a number of leading rabbis agreed to a law that would very likely have led to significant chareidi enlistment. These rabbis may not actively promote enlisting working chareidim. But in the end, they agreed to that reality in exchange for settling the status of yeshiva students, and their agreement carries enormous weight.
This isn't only about positions. It's about facts on the ground. In recent years, the IDF has worked with influential conservative communities inside chareidi society to build dedicated frameworks for chareidi soldiers. Substantial groups of chareidim are already serving fully in these units. They have been running for quite some time, and they maintain a chareidi way of life.
That is an important milestone. If this reality continues and takes root, several key stages on the road to broader change will already be behind us.
To understand what's happening now, you need to understand how chareidi society absorbs change. Change usually doesn't start at the center. It starts with tight-knit communities that are strict about halacha. Once it becomes clear that a change can be made without compromising halacha, it gradually works its way into the chareidi mainstream.
This pattern repeats whenever chareidi society faces a new challenge. Three camps form. One is an extreme camp that pushes for strict separation. Opposite it is a practical camp that introduces certain changes and adapts them to halacha. The central camp first leans toward the extremists, but over time moves closer and closer to the practical camp.
The draft conflict is no different. Once yeshiva students' status is settled, and it becomes clear over time that the army truly maintains frameworks suited to chareidi society, opposition to enlisting working chareidim will very likely soften across chareidi society. When major communities lead a change and show that halacha can be preserved, the change tends to keep moving forward. Unlike other challenges, this one does require a legal framework and broader cooperation from the chareidi public. Still, unlike past efforts to integrate chareidim, the ground is now ready.
So who lost when the draft law failed? Not only yeshiva students, but reservists too. First, the chareidi public would likely have met the law's agreed enlistment targets. It would not have faced sanctions written into a law it had agreed to, and that would have brought real, undeniable change. Second, even if the targets weren't fully met, chareidi integration into the IDF would most likely be further along today, and relief for reservists would have come sooner.
Instead, the confrontation between the chareidi public and the enforcement authorities is slowing and undermining the process. When the state moves against chareidi society and fights its most basic principles, the result is the opposite of what it wants: radicalization and separation. That certainly doesn't encourage enlistment.
The change has already started, and today's reality is very different from past attempts at chareidi integration, for two main reasons. There is now a growing movement inside the chareidi public working in practical ways to bring chareidim into the IDF. And broad segments of the chareidi public have come to accept that it's no longer possible to insist that working chareidim not enlist, as long as suitable frameworks exist and yeshiva students' status is settled.
In the end, the most practical way to bring real change is in partnership with the chareidi public. Change imposed without regard for its principles will move far more slowly, if at all.
A different opinion is not necessarily a destructive one. The debate over how to resolve this conflict naturally creates tension. Some see the push to settle yeshiva students' status while integrating chareidim into the IDF as an attempt to undermine chareidi principles. That is a mistake, and it's worth explaining why.
The chareidi public is defined by its uncompromising commitment to the boundaries of halacha and the Shulchan Aruch, with Torah study and the observance of mitzvos as its highest values. That is its essence. On clear-cut matters of halacha, there is no room for debate, beyond the usual disputes among halachic authorities and differing community customs. But on challenges that surround halacha, questions that are not settled law, it's natural for people to disagree about how to respond. A different opinion is not automatically a more lenient one. Some may argue that preserving our principles requires one approach, while others argue for the exact opposite, and both share the same goal: protecting those principles as well as possible.
Back to the draft. The main chareidi objection to enlistment, even among men who are not full-time Torah learners, has never really been about military service itself. It has been about the IDF environment, which has often created serious halachic obstacles and led many enlistees into spiritual decline. As that changes, it is legitimate for some to argue that chareidim should join the IDF while strictly preserving halacha. That position isn't meant to harm chareidi principles. It's meant to protect them. It also makes an agreed solution with the state possible much sooner. By contrast, a position that rejects every possible solution endangers the chareidi public and causes needless suffering for yeshiva students.
This position is strengthened by another fact: the chareidi public needs the army and relies on its protection, both as a community and as individuals. Even if the current situation is unavoidable, that doesn't make it justified. We must find ways to change it without harming the principles of chareidi society.
When it comes to the boundaries of halacha, as noted, there can be no dispute within a community whose purpose is to guard those boundaries.
Some will oppose any solution, and that is their right. But on matters of halacha there is no room for debate, which makes it all the stranger that some of those who reject every solution act in ways that violate halacha.
Take road blockades. It's not clear what halachic basis permits them. They cause great distress to the general public and financial harm to many people, such as lost working hours. Deliberate actions that cause financial damage, even indirectly, are forbidden by halacha. So even if blocking roads were legal, it's not clear that it would be permitted under halacha.
What is certainly forbidden, with no room for discussion, is damaging other people's property. Slashing tires, smashing windows and damaging people's homes are severely forbidden. Beyond the halachic obligation to pay for damages, there is a clear prohibition against causing harm, whatever the motive. And a struggle for the sake of Torah cannot be waged in a way that contradicts the Torah.
Finally, our sages taught: "One who sees suffering coming upon him should examine his deeds." As believing Jews, we know that no suffering befalls a person or a community unless it was decreed in Heaven. The distress our society now finds itself in should prompt us to ask whether we, too, have something to fix. It is true that the persecution of Torah learners in the Land of Israel is an unthinkable reality, and correcting it may not be in our hands. But there may well be things expected of us to correct and change. Through that, may we merit to see fulfilled the words of our sages: "Torah scholars increase peace in the world."
