On Wednesday, the High Court of Justice will hear petitions pressing the state to explain and justify its handling of conscription among the haredi (ultra-Orthodox) community – specifically, why numerous eligible yeshiva students have not been issued enforceable enlistment orders and why enforcement against draft evasion has been limited.
The hearing follows a provisional order from the court that demanded the government explain its actions and policies; the court set a deadline for the state to submit its written explanation, which it did on Sunday.
The petitions were brought by NGOs and private petitioners who say the state is failing to meet its obligations under rulings, in the fight to end the blanket exemption for yeshiva students. That exemption effectively expired in June 2023; petitioners now say the government must either issue and enforce conscription orders or demonstrate a lawful and transparent basis for limiting conscription.
A draft law is in the works now and is due to be presented on Thursday, spearheaded by Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee chair Likud MK Boaz Bismuth, who took over the position after the ousted chair, Likud MK Yuli Edelstein, refused to bend to the demands of haredim, which threatened the stability of the coalition. However, Ynet on Monday evening cited Bismuth claiming that the presentation will be delayed until next Monday to give time for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to review the draft.
A central flashpoint in the litigation is enforcement – particularly the role of the Israel Police. NGO filings and reporting point to a gap between the IDF’s stated aims to broaden recruitment and the practical willingness or ability of law-enforcement agencies to detain or otherwise compel non-compliant individuals in civilian settings.
Some reports, along with updates from NGOs, describe decisions that limit arrests of haredi draft evaders in civilian contexts, citing concerns about public-order responses to detention operations. The state, in court filings, has argued that arrests in civilian areas present operational difficulties, including the risk of protests, disturbances, and roadblocks – especially in areas near military detention facilities.
These enforcement questions arrive against a politically fraught backdrop: the issue of ultra-Orthodox conscription has repeatedly strained governing coalitions, with party leaders and coalition partners warning of political consequences if a new statutory arrangement that preserves broad exemptions is not advanced. In recent months, heightened tensions were documented between rulings, the government’s implementation choices, and parliamentary maneuvers to draft (or delay) a successor law.
The state has told the court and the public that it is working to expand conscription efforts and to apply enforcement tools within existing legal frameworks, and that it faces significant practical and political constraints in doing so.
Uncertain legal footing
At the same time, reports and legal analyses have noted that the absence of a clear statutory exemption mechanism since mid-2023 has left the government on an uncertain legal footing when it attempts to delay or limit large-scale enlistment of yeshiva students. That legal vacuum is a driving legal premise of the petitioners’ argument: without a lawful exemption regime, the state must justify why it is not issuing and enforcing conscription orders against eligible individuals.
There have also been documentations recently of active operations and public clashes around the issue – from the issuance of call-up notices to protests and localized confrontations – demonstrating how sensitive and volatile enforcement can be on the ground. Those pieces underscore why the High Court has pushed for clarity: the question is not only a legal one but also an operational and political challenge with immediate effects on public order and on perceptions of equal civic duty.
The backdrop to all this, along with the expiration of the previous law in 2023, is the Israel-Hamas war, where thousands were called up to fight. As the war dragged on, however, public anger towards haredim – a sector that has no reasons beyond its own convictions not to draft – has been left out of carrying this very heavy load.
When the court meets, it will consider whether the provisional order should be converted into a final, binding directive requiring the state to act more definitively – whether by issuing further orders, publishing a clear and consistent enforcement policy, or otherwise showing a lawful, practicable plan for implementing the court’s earlier rulings.
Any such decision will have consequences well beyond courtroom procedure: it will test how Israel reconciles judicial rulings, executive implementation, law-enforcement discretion, and political realities in a matter central to national service and the country’s wartime needs.