The debate over the so-called Bismuth bill, also known as Israel’s conscription bill, has been accompanied by a wave of slogans and accusations long before any serious discussion of what the law actually says. Anyone who dares to oppose it is immediately portrayed as an “ultra-Orthodox hater” or a “useful idiot” serving the enemies of the people, meaning the political left.
But behind the noise are four fundamental mistakes that require an honest examination.
1 View gallery
Boaz Bismuth, chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, during a debate on Israel’s ultra-Orthodox conscription bill
(Photo: Alex Kolomoisky)
First mistake: ‘You can’t draft people by force.’
This is one of the strangest arguments to hear, especially from those leading the legislation. The Israel Defense Forces are built on mandatory service established by law. Every young Israeli who receives a first call-up notice and later a draft order is legally required to report. That is, by definition, compulsory conscription.
Moreover, anyone familiar with Jewish tradition knows that the Torah and rabbinic law were not alarmed by the idea of compulsion, whether for personal commandments or for collective social duties. The Mishnah in Tractate Sotah states explicitly that military commanders place guards with swords behind the troops, and anyone trying to retreat from battle may be stopped by force. Jewish law recognizes a public obligation and sanctions against those who flee it.
The same principle appears in other commandments: the tradition says “we compel charity” and “we compel people not to behave like Sodom,” meaning society may push individuals to do what is right when they will not choose it on their own. Often people start out meeting an obligation because they must, and end up doing it with willingness, identification and even pride.
In the ultra-Orthodox community, many people already believe deeply in Israel’s cause, pray for victory and show devotion and responsibility. Once normal, suitable and respectful service frameworks are created, there is no reason they cannot become excellent soldiers, even if the first step comes through law and not only personal choice.
Second mistake: ‘Drafting ultra-Orthodox men will destroy the world of Torah study.’
Here the issue is not only a mistake, but often fearmongering. Talk of “fatal harm to Torah scholarship” creates the impression that every yeshiva student will be dragged by force from his desk and that study halls will be emptied. That is simply not the reality.
There will always be tens of thousands of Torah students before draft age and after it. Naturally, some will receive exemptions for medical reasons. Some will serve and later return to study. Some will devote their entire lives to learning. The law can anchor a limited exemption for truly exceptional scholars and a shortened service track for those engaged in serious, meaningful study.
This is the constant threat: Any criticism is cast as an attack on the right. Any protest is framed as a danger to the government. But a government is not the goal, it is a means. It should be judged by the values it advances and the policies it enacts.
The claim that any attempt to regulate mandatory service automatically equals “harm to Torah study” is untrue. A strong world of Torah does not rest on a sweeping exemption for anyone wearing a black suit and hat. It rests on real scholars and dedicated students whose status can be protected even under a balanced and fair law.
Third mistake: ‘Opponents are “useful idiots” and “ultra-Orthodox haters.”’
Instead of addressing the arguments, some supporters of the bill attack its critics. They label them “useful idiots,” “ultra-Orthodox haters,” or people helping the left bring down the right. In this way, a substantive debate about equal civic responsibility and national security turns into a trial of motives.
But someone who opposes the Bismuth bill is not an enemy of the ultra-Orthodox. They are someone who believes that a law entrenching inequality, weakening the military and creating a double standard in shared sacrifice is a bad law, even if it is politically convenient. It is possible to respect the ultra-Orthodox public, value Torah learning and still insist that the burden of defense must apply to them as well.
Fourth mistake: ‘Fighting the bill means toppling the government.’
This is the constant threat: any criticism is “hurting the right,” and any struggle is “endangering the government.” But a government is not the goal. It is a tool. It should be judged by the values it advances and the policy it enacts.
Hagay LoberPhoto: Joey CohenEven within the right wing, parties have threatened to quit governments over diplomatic or security issues. Yet when it comes to regulating conscription, every objection is suddenly treated as sabotage. Anyone focused on Israel’s security, the military’s manpower crisis, the crushing load on those who serve and the moral and religious duty to take part in a national war of defense has the right, and even the obligation, to fight a law they see as a distortion. That remains true even if it is politically inconvenient, and even if others exploit their arguments for their own purposes.
The struggle against the Bismuth bill is not a struggle against the ultra-Orthodox community, and not against Torah. It is a genuine attempt to correct a decades-old injustice, prevent loss of life, end discrimination and allow the army to win. Together, we should legislate an effective and balanced law that brings about real conscription.
Hagai Luber is a bereaved father and founder of the Aspaklaria Theater.
First published: 05:37, 12.05.25