Senior Attorney David Peter on Monday published a legal analysis of the High Court rulings on the conscription of Chareidim, making fundamental claims that extend far beyond the draft issue itself, and raising frightening concerns about the extent of the judicial coup in Israel.

“Try to set aside the strong (and understandable) emotions regarding the drafting of the Chareidim, and let’s talk about the issue itself,” he began.

“Israeli law states that only someone who receives a draft order from the “pokeid” (the IDF officer responsible for conscription) is obligated to enlist. In other words, contrary to the common myth, there is no general mandatory draft in Israel—and never has been.”

“The conscription officer may act in accordance with professional judgment of the IDF’s needs, and may also act in accordance with government policy. This is how Chareidim and Arabs weren’t drafted, as well as other ethnic and religious minority groups.

“The High Court decided—without any legal basis —that this law is insufficient and that a specific, explicit law is required to grant an exemption for Chareidim, even though no such law was required for other minority groups, and the Court’s ruling did not apply to them at all.”

“So the Knesset went ahead and passed a law (even though the law was perfectly fine, as stated, and the legislation was required solely as a response to the Court).

“Afterward, the Court systematically struck down every Knesset law that attempted to create a broad framework regulating Chareidi conscription policy, claiming it violated ‘equality.’ In other words, a parliamentary achievement for a minority is considered a violation of ‘equality’—an unprecedented development in the history of judicial systems.

“Justice Asher Grunis [the President of the High Court from 2012 to 2015] pointed out this absurdity in a minority opinion. Today, there isn’t even a Grunis—not a single voice saying ‘the emperor has no clothes.’

“In simple terms: the Court has repeatedly ruled that Israeli citizens do not have political rights that allow granting advantages to a minority—but only when that minority is Jewish—because this harms the majority’s right to equality. Other minorities, who are not Jewish, are entitled to such advantages (in conscription and in many other areas), and no one questions it.

“Let’s analyze this for a moment: Who protects the political rights of the majority? Who protects the rights of a minority to receive benefits through parliamentary means? Who protects the rights of Jewish minority groups to equality vis‑à‑vis other minority groups? And who even decides who is the ‘majority’ and who is the ‘minority’ in each matter?

“We’ve gotten used to the Court ignoring the law—that’s already routine—but if the Court does not protect minorities at all, and this is merely an aesthetic cover for a different set of protected principles, what are those principles? And who determines them?

“And as if this absurdity wasn’t enough, in the latest wave of rulings, the Court took three further steps:

A. The Court directly ordered the IDF conscription officer to issue draft orders—thereby, via a legal fabrication, turning all Chareidim into “deserters”—bypassing the law.
B. The Court ordered the police to carry out arrests.
C. The Court imposed specific economic sanctions—without any legal basis whatsoever—solely on the Jewish minority that had received a lawful privilege from the parliamentary majority.

Peter then directed criticism at parts of the religious right, calling on them to separate their personal stance on the issue of Chareidi conscription from principled opposition to judicial moves that harm Israeli democracy. “The right must undergo a true cultural transformation,” he wrote, warning that accepting judicial overreach simply because its outcome is convenient is no different from the approach the right attributes to the left.

“I hear many good and thoughtful people on the right (especially in the religious community) who cannot distinguish between their personal views on Chareidi conscription and the troubling actions being taken within Israeli democracy,” he stated. “What, then, is the difference between them and the left, which supports every action of the Court and the Attorney General simply because the outcome suits them?

“Deeply disappointing. Precisely where it is uncomfortable, my dear friends, is where it is most important to stand firm.

“This moment highlights how much we need something beyond any specific policy or piece of legislation. The right must undergo a true cultural transformation—a paradigm shift. We must see clearly what we are facing,” he ominously concluded.

(YWN Israel Desk—Jerusalem)