(VINnews) – Hatzibur HaHaredi challenges Shas and United Torah Judaism over military service, education and political representation, triggering a fierce debate over Torah study and the future of Israel’s Haredi community.

A new political movement within Israel’s Haredi community has ignited a firestorm in the run-up to the October 27 Knesset election, drawing fierce condemnation from prominent rabbinic leaders and prompting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to personally intervene in an effort to persuade its leader to abandon the race.

Hatzibur HaHaredi, meaning “The Haredi Public,” is challenging the longstanding dominance of Shas and United Torah Judaism, the two parties that have traditionally represented Israel’s ultra-Orthodox population. Led by Moti Leitner, the deputy mayor of Beit Shemesh, the movement is seeking to give a political voice to Haredim who remain committed to Torah and mitzvos but believe the established leadership has failed to address the changing needs of significant parts of their community.

The confrontation has become particularly intense in recent days. Rabbi Dov Landau, one of the most influential rabbinic authorities in the Lithuanian Haredi world, sent a handwritten letter to a rabbi supporting the new party, warning that he would fight the movement with all his strength and accusing its supporters of causing serious harm to Haredi Judaism. He compared their actions to grave Torah prohibitions and urged them to withdraw their support.

The rabbi who received the letter, however, reportedly did not change his position. The exchange has highlighted the depth of opposition within the established rabbinic leadership and the determination of the new movement’s supporters to continue despite mounting pressure.

The dispute has also reached the highest levels of Israeli politics. Netanyahu personally contacted Leitner as part of efforts to convince smaller right-wing parties to withdraw before the election. Likud representatives reportedly discussed offering Leitner a senior government role overseeing programs for the Haredi community, including initiatives related to education and workforce participation, in exchange for ending his independent campaign.

Leitner rejected the pressure and announced that his party would remain in the race. He argued that the established parties had failed to reach an agreement with him before their candidate lists were finalized and that the community deserved an alternative.

At the heart of the confrontation is a fundamental question about the future of Haredi society: Can the community preserve its commitment to Torah study and its religious traditions while adopting a different approach to military service, education, employment and participation in Israeli public life?

The controversy is not simply about a new party seeking Knesset seats. It is a challenge to the political arrangements and leadership structures that have shaped Haredi representation for generations.

From a local movement in Beit Shemesh to a national political challenge

Leitner’s political career began at the municipal level. In 2024, he established and led the Derech faction in Beit Shemesh, which won two seats on the city council. He subsequently became a deputy mayor, taking responsibility for municipal portfolios that included security and emergency preparedness.

A resident of Beit Shemesh who grew up in the Rachmastrivka Hasidic community in Jerusalem, Leitner also developed a professional career in technology, including software and DevOps. His experience in the Haredi education system and his involvement in efforts to establish state-Haredi educational institutions helped shape his views on the challenges facing religious families.

Those challenges, according to the party, include rising housing costs, limited employment opportunities, educational shortcomings, school dropout rates and the difficulties faced by Haredi families trying to make ends meet.

The movement’s founders initially sought to secure greater representation within the existing Haredi political framework. When those efforts failed to produce an agreement, they decided to establish an independent party.

The national campaign was launched in August under the slogan “This time, we take responsibility.”

The party says it wants to represent the full range of Haredi society, including working families, Hasidic communities, Sephardi and Ashkenazi Haredim, immigrants, baalei teshuvah and people who seek to combine Torah observance with employment and broader educational opportunities.

Its argument is that the existing parties no longer adequately represent all these constituencies, particularly those whose lives do not fit neatly into the traditional political model centered on full-time yeshiva study and communal institutions.

The party’s emergence is therefore an attempt to translate years of debate within Haredi society into an independent national political force.

Why the established rabbinic leadership is fighting back

The opposition to Hatzibur HaHaredi goes beyond ordinary political competition.

For decades, Shas and United Torah Judaism have operated within a system in which political representation is closely tied to rabbinic authority. Their leaders negotiate with successive Israeli governments over religious affairs, educational funding, yeshiva budgets, military exemptions and legislation affecting Haredi life.

Supporters of the established parties view this framework as a means of protecting Torah study and preserving the community’s religious independence in a predominantly secular state.

Hatzibur HaHaredi argues that the framework has failed to deliver adequately for many of the people it claims to represent. Its leaders say the community faces serious problems that cannot be resolved through political confrontation alone or by repeatedly postponing difficult decisions.

That position threatens the established parties in two ways.

First, it questions their effectiveness. If Haredi families continue to struggle with housing, employment and educational opportunities, the new movement argues, the traditional leadership must be held accountable for its record.

Second, it challenges their authority to determine the community’s political direction. An independent Haredi party advocating changes that differ from the positions of established rabbinic leadership creates a direct test of whether political loyalty must follow the traditional party structure.

Rabbi Landau’s forceful letter illustrates how seriously some prominent rabbinic figures view the challenge. His intervention was not merely a criticism of a competing political list; it was a warning to religious supporters that their participation could damage the broader Haredi community.

The disagreement also reveals an important distinction. Hatzibur HaHaredi presents itself as a movement seeking to protect the Torah world by addressing practical problems. Its opponents fear that its approach could weaken the communal consensus and political leverage through which the Torah world has traditionally been protected.

The two sides are therefore arguing over both policy and who has the authority to determine what protecting Haredi Judaism requires.

The draft crisis at the center of the controversy

The most consequential policy dispute concerns military service.

For generations, arrangements allowing many yeshiva students to defer military service have been a central issue in the relationship between Israel’s Haredi community and the state. Traditional Haredi leaders argue that full-time Torah study is a vital contribution to the Jewish people and that students who dedicate themselves to learning must be protected from compulsory enlistment.

The legal and political framework governing those exemptions has come under mounting pressure, particularly as the Israeli military faces personnel demands following the October 7 attacks and the subsequent war.

The Supreme Court’s ruling against the longstanding blanket exemption framework and the resulting demands for enforcement have intensified tensions between the government, the military and Haredi leadership.

Hatzibur HaHaredi proposes drawing a clearer distinction between men who genuinely devote themselves to full-time Torah study and those for whom Torah is not their primary occupation.

Under its platform, full-time Torah learners would be protected through a comprehensive arrangement, while Haredi men who are not dedicated to full-time study would be required to undertake military, civilian or other national service through frameworks adapted to their religious needs.

The party says this approach would protect serious Torah scholars while addressing the state’s need for broader participation in security and national service.

Its position is neither a call to conscript every yeshiva student nor a defense of an unlimited exemption for every Haredi man regardless of his circumstances. Instead, it seeks to distinguish between full-time learners and those who are not engaged in sustained Torah study.

That distinction puts the movement at odds with established Haredi political positions on the scope and enforcement of military exemptions, while also separating it from secular parties that advocate broader conscription.

Rabbi Yehoshua Pfeffer and the question of law enforcement

Rabbi Yehoshua Pfeffer, who chairs the party’s rabbinic committee, has become an important voice in explaining its approach.

Pfeffer has criticized the use of arrests as a tool for enforcing enlistment, arguing that such tactics create friction and can strengthen extremist elements. At the same time, he has condemned organized efforts to obstruct military police from carrying out arrests.

Following an incident in which Haredi protesters gathered in Modi’in to prevent the arrest of a draft evader, Pfeffer described the situation as more than opposition to military service, characterizing the obstruction as lawlessness.

His position reflects the party’s attempt to distinguish its approach from both uncompromising opposition to enlistment and enforcement measures that it believes unnecessarily provoke the Haredi public.

The party argues that a workable arrangement must protect genuine Torah learners, provide suitable service frameworks for others and prevent the issue from becoming a perpetual confrontation between the Haredi community and the state.

That approach is controversial precisely because it challenges the assumption that the existing political arrangements can continue unchanged.

Education: The battle over English, mathematics and Haredi independence

Another major component of the party’s platform is education.

Many Haredi families prioritize Torah study and want their children educated in environments that preserve their religious identity. The established Haredi school systems have historically placed a strong emphasis on religious learning, while the extent of instruction in subjects such as English and mathematics varies across institutions.

Hatzibur HaHaredi argues that students should have access to the basic educational tools needed to pursue further education, enter the workforce and support their families without sacrificing their religious commitments.

The party supports expanding educational frameworks that combine Haredi religious identity with core academic subjects. It also advocates greater funding and resources for state-Haredi schools, which provide a religious environment while incorporating broader academic instruction.

Its platform calls for strengthening these institutions in cities across Israel while preserving the independence of Haredi education and the ability of communities to choose how their children are educated.

This is a sensitive issue because some traditional Haredi leaders fear that greater state involvement or expanded secular curricula could undermine the autonomy of religious schools.

Hatzibur HaHaredi counters that better educational preparation can strengthen the community economically and reduce the difficulties faced by families whose children later struggle to find suitable employment.

The dispute is therefore not simply about which subjects children should study. It concerns the balance between religious independence, economic opportunity and the state’s role in supporting educational institutions.

The party presents educational reform as a means of preparing the next generation for financial stability while maintaining Torah observance. Its critics may see the proposed changes as a departure from established norms that have helped preserve Haredi life for generations.

Employment, housing and the cost of raising a Haredi family

The party’s economic agenda is rooted in the financial pressures facing many Haredi households.

Large families, expensive housing and the costs of religious education can place a substantial burden on household budgets. For families seeking to combine Torah study with employment, access to professional training and suitable jobs can be especially important.

Leitner argues that Haredi political representation must do more to address these practical concerns.

The party advocates expanding employment opportunities, encouraging professional development, lowering the cost of living and making government programs more responsive to the needs of working families and small businesses.

It also highlights the need for attainable housing and greater attention to school dropout rates, which can have long-term consequences for young people and their families.

The party’s broader argument is that economic hardship cannot be addressed solely through benefits and subsidies. It says Haredi communities also need stronger pathways to earning a dignified livelihood.

This position does not mean that the movement wants to abandon the traditional Torah-centered way of life. Rather, it argues that people who want to work should be able to do so without feeling that employment places them outside the community’s accepted framework.

The party also says that Haredi families should not have to choose between maintaining their religious identity and acquiring the tools needed to become financially secure.

For the established parties, the challenge is whether these goals can be pursued without undermining existing communal institutions. For Hatzibur HaHaredi, the question is whether those institutions can remain strong if the economic problems facing many families are not addressed more effectively.

An unprecedented break with tradition: Women on the party list

Perhaps the most visible departure from established Haredi political conventions is the inclusion of women among the party’s leading candidates.

Dr. Nechumi Yaffe, a researcher specializing in Haredi society and a senior lecturer at Tel Aviv University, is ranked third on the list. Ziva Glantz, a professional with experience in housing, infrastructure, economic development and immigrant absorption, is ranked fourth.

Their inclusion marks a significant departure from the candidate lists of Shas and United Torah Judaism, which have traditionally not placed women among their Knesset candidates.

Yaffe’s academic work has focused on Haredi society and the challenges it faces. Glantz has argued that many Haredi women and men already participate in the wider economy and want political representatives who understand their practical needs.

Their presence reflects the movement’s claim that Haredi society is more diverse than its traditional political representation suggests.

For supporters, including women on the list is a way to give a broader range of voices a role in public decision-making. For critics who adhere to traditional conventions governing Haredi political representation, it raises questions about communal norms and the role women should play in national politics.

The move is especially significant because Hatzibur HaHaredi is not presenting itself as a secular party. It seeks to operate within a religious framework while departing from some of the political conventions maintained by the established Haredi parties.

That combination makes the movement difficult to categorize. It is challenging traditional political practices while insisting that its purpose is to preserve and strengthen the Haredi community.

Why Netanyahu became involved

The controversy has significant implications for Israeli coalition politics.

Leitner has described his movement as right-wing, national and conservative on economic, diplomatic and security issues. He has said he would be comfortable serving in a government led by Netanyahu and has expressed support for a broader national coalition.

Yet his independent candidacy creates a problem for the prime minister’s political bloc.

Israel’s electoral system requires a party to receive at least 3.25% of the national vote to enter the Knesset. If a small party draws votes from the right-wing electorate but fails to cross that threshold, those votes do not translate into parliamentary seats.

That possibility has made Hatzibur HaHaredi a concern for Netanyahu’s allies, who are seeking to prevent the fragmentation of their electoral base.

According to Israeli media reports, Netanyahu personally spoke with Leitner and sought to persuade him to withdraw. Likud representatives also reportedly discussed a government role overseeing programs for the Haredi community, with a budget of hundreds of millions of shekels, if the party abandoned its campaign and the right-wing bloc formed the next government.

The proposed responsibilities reportedly included initiatives involving state-Haredi schools and workforce integration, areas that overlap with Leitner’s own policy priorities.

The discussions illustrate the tension between the party’s political independence and the possibility of pursuing some of its goals through government appointments and negotiated agreements.

Leitner has argued that the established parties had their opportunity to reach an agreement before the candidate lists closed. He has also expressed distrust of promises that might later be blocked by Shas or United Torah Judaism.

On October 21, he publicly announced that his party would continue campaigning despite the pressure.

The confrontation is a reminder that the dispute over Haredi representation is not confined to religious institutions. It has become part of the broader battle over the composition and future of Israel’s next government.

The electoral gamble

For all the attention the party has attracted, translating public interest into Knesset representation remains a formidable challenge.

Haredi voters have longstanding relationships with established parties, community institutions and rabbinic authorities. Choosing an independent list can therefore involve more than a calculation about policy; it may also mean breaking with familiar communal voting patterns.

The electoral threshold adds another layer of risk. A party that falls short of 3.25% will not receive seats, even if it attracts a meaningful number of votes.

Published polling has not consistently shown Hatzibur HaHaredi reaching that threshold. That uncertainty helps explain why the established parties have been pressing Leitner to withdraw and why the prime minister has reportedly become personally involved.

For supporters, however, the argument is that continuing to vote for the same parties without meaningful change risks perpetuating the problems the new movement seeks to address.

Even without entering the Knesset, the party’s campaign could expose dissatisfaction within the Haredi electorate and put pressure on established representatives to address questions of employment, education and military service more directly.

The ultimate test is whether enough voters are prepared to turn that dissatisfaction into support for an independent party.

A wider debate over the future of Haredi society

Hatzibur HaHaredi has emerged at a moment when Israel’s Haredi community faces several interconnected challenges: the legal and political crisis surrounding military exemptions, economic pressures on families, questions about educational preparation and debates about who should represent the community.

Its leaders argue that the goal is not to weaken Torah study or abandon religious tradition. They say that genuine Torah learners must be protected, while those who do not study full-time should have appropriate avenues for service, and families should have better access to education, employment and housing.

The established rabbinic leadership sees the movement as a challenge to a political framework built around preserving the community’s religious independence. Its opposition reflects concern not only about the potential division of votes but also about the authority and unity of the traditional Haredi leadership.

The inclusion of women on the party list, its proposals for education reform and its approach to military service have made the dispute especially consequential.

Netanyahu’s reported intervention has added a national political dimension, turning the campaign into a test of whether a new Haredi movement can maintain its independence in the face of pressure from both established religious leaders and the wider right-wing political bloc.

Whether Hatzibur HaHaredi secures representation in the Knesset or falls short of the electoral threshold, it has already forced difficult questions into public debate.

Who should speak for Haredi families? How can Torah study be protected while the state addresses its military needs? What educational opportunities should be available to Haredi children? And can the community adapt its political institutions without abandoning the traditions that have sustained it?

Those questions lie at the center of the movement’s challenge to Israel’s established Haredi leadership—and explain why a new party, founded only months ago, has become one of the most contentious stories in the country’s election campaign.