By Matt Underwood The statement by the ex-chief rabbi—that arresting Haredi draft dodgers would result in ultra-Orthodox Jews leaving Israel—has sparked a wide range of reactions, many of which suggest that such an exodus wouldn’t be viewed as a loss by many Israelis. The sentiment revolves around the substantial economic burden the Haredi community places on the country.
Many believe the Haredi community’s exemption from military service and their reliance on extensive government subsidies are unsustainable. A large percentage of Haredi men do not participate in the workforce, instead dedicating their time to Torah study, while receiving significant financial support from the state. This, according to many, constitutes a significant drain on the Israeli economy and creates an inequitable system where other citizens bear a disproportionate share of the tax burden.
The Haredi community’s concentration in contested territories further fuels the discontent. Their presence in these areas often leads to increased friction with Palestinians and necessitates additional security measures, adding to the financial strain on the government. The perception that they benefit from the IDF’s protection without contributing to the national defense further exacerbates the resentment.
The ex-chief rabbi’s statement, therefore, is interpreted by many not as a threat but as a desirable outcome. The idea that the Haredi community might leave Israel is met with a sense of relief, even excitement, by those who feel the community is a net negative for the country’s economic and social well-being. The comment section, for example, was overwhelmed by comments describing the threat as a “good time” and a “benefit”.
The argument that the Haredi community’s religious practices somehow protect Israel through divine intervention—a claim made by the ex-chief rabbi—is widely dismissed as absurd. The notion that the effectiveness of Israel’s missile defense system is contingent upon the number of people studying Torah is seen as a ludicrous justification for continued financial support and exemption from military service.
Moreover, the social conservatism and restrictive gender roles prevalent within the Haredi community are criticized as regressive and incompatible with modern Israeli society. The treatment of women as second-class citizens and the emphasis on large families without economic contribution fuels concerns about social justice and the long-term sustainability of the welfare system.
The potential political ramifications of the Haredi community’s departure are also considered. While the ultra-Orthodox represent a significant voting bloc currently supporting right-wing parties, many Israelis see their absence as potentially leading to a more moderate political landscape. The loss of this voting bloc could weaken the influence of extremist politicians and shift the political balance towards more centrist and inclusive policies.
The idea of the Haredi community relocating to other countries, such as the United States or European nations, raises concerns about the potential for similar reliance on welfare systems and a lack of workforce participation elsewhere. This raises questions about the broader implications of their exemption from civic responsibilities.
Ultimately, the ex-chief rabbi’s statement highlights a deep societal rift within Israel. It underscores the ongoing tension between the ultra-Orthodox community’s demands for exemption and religious freedom and the broader population’s concerns about economic fairness, national security, and social progress. The largely positive reaction to the idea of the Haredi community leaving suggests a growing weariness with the current status quo and a desire for a more equitable and inclusive society. The perceived threat, therefore, ironically acts as a reflection of a significant portion of the Israeli population’s desire for change.