Posted by New Delhi: Israel, while currently engaged in conflict in Gaza, seems to have problems within the country as well. Recently a bill was proposed in the country to extend the exemption of compulsory military service to ultra-Orthodox students. Ultra-orthodox Jews who have historically been exempted from military conscription in Israel would have to get conscripted in the army if the bill is passed. This has ignited much debate and turmoil in the country, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly warning that the failure to pass the law could jeopardise the government’s stability.
While military service in Israel has been mandatory for decades, for ultra-Orthodox Jews, also known as Haredi, it has been exempted since the establishment of the country. They are allowed to practise the study of Torah full-time. The alternative plan now seems to enlist ultra-Orthodox battalions in the Israel Defense Forces too. This has caused debate and is also expected to create fissure in both the social and political establishment of the country.
Different strains of Judaism in Israeli society
The establishment of Israel as a modern State was done with the idea of a Jewish population coming together under one roof, a homeland for Jews around the world where they can prosper without persecution they face around the world.
While the idea of a united Jewish identity persists in Israel, the country nonetheless is divided into different factions of a Judaistic society. Major subdivisions in Israeli Jewry do exist.
Four major sections of the Jewish population in Israel can be said to exist. These include, the Ultra-Orthodox or Haredi population, Dati or religious, Masorti or traditional and the Secular Jewish population often termed as Hiloni.
This spectrum of Jewish population often differs on a range of issues which include marriage, military conscription, gender, religious education and the like.
Broadly speaking, the Haredi and Dati Jews, both religiously Orthodox differ from secular Jews on a variety of issues. This has often been the main dividing line in Israel’s Jewish population and many forms of argument have erupted from this in the country’s short history.
From what should be the guiding principle of the state of Israel to how state affairs on a daily basis should operate, divisions persist. While most agree that Israel can be both a Jewish state and a modern, liberal democracy, how a balance between the two is achieved has been a major point of contention.
For example, what route should be taken if a democratically made decision goes against the Jewish law, halakha, often becomes problematic. In such situations we often see the orthodox segment vouching for Jewish law while the secular segment saying democratic principles should be given priority.
Another major point of contention, which plays into the current situation as well, is what is the extent of religious duty an Israeli Jewish citizen is expected to engage in. Ultra-Orthodox Jews consider it an obligation to exclusively engage in study of Jewish texts while maintaining a distance from modern, materialistic society. This exclusive study of religious texts that they consider a religious obligation is then what makes them refuse mandatory military conscription.
While the exemption policy for ultra-Orthodox Jews dates back to during the initial days of Israel’s foundation, times have since changed. Detractors claim that the exemption at that time was to foster a religious segment in the newly formed state. The Haredi population too was small at that time but has since then increased. Granting this large percentage of the population military exemption while not to others, is seen as problematic to many.
The situation now is likely to cause major problems to the country’s political establishment. For example, Benny Gantz, a political rival of Netanyahu has declared his willingness to resign from the emergency unity government if the law is approved. Similarly defence minister, Yoav Gallant, also said he would not support the law. This could mean problems for the government at a time when it would not be welcome, aggravating differences in a society already under stress.