Attorney David Peter Slams High Court Ruling on Chareidi Draft as “Legal Fiction”
Amid the escalating debate over Israel’s draft law and proposed economic penalties targeting the Torah community, constitutional attorney David Peter has issued a forceful critique of the High Court’s recent ruling, arguing that it undermines fundamental democratic principles while masking itself in the language of equality.
The latest High Court decision marked a significant escalation in the battle over the conscription of chareidim, with justices invoking their authority to act “for the sake of justice” and ordering government ministries to quickly formulate concrete steps to impose broad financial sanctions.
The measures under consideration strike directly at what many describe as the economic backbone of chareidi families, including canceling daycare and after-school subsidies, eliminating discounts on municipal taxes and public transportation, and even denying benefits tied to government housing programs. The judges acknowledged they were acting “with a very heavy heart” but argued that such steps were necessary due to the state’s failure to enforce the law.
Rejecting the court’s underlying assumptions, Peter asserted in a sharply worded statement that “there is no and never has been a general conscription obligation in Israel.” He explained that, under Israeli law, the draft requirement applies only to individuals who receive a personal order from a military officer, and that for years, authorities have exercised discretion not to draft certain minority groups, including Arabs and chareidim.
According to Peter, the High Court created a “legal fiction” by determining that chareidim require specific legislation to be exempt from service, while other minority groups are effectively excluded through administrative discretion. He described the ruling as one that singles out the Jewish minority sector for unequal treatment under the banner of equality.
Peter further argued that the decision reflects a broader breakdown in the legal system’s adherence to its own principles.
He contended that the court effectively invented new sanctions without any explicit legislative basis.
He also accused the judiciary of overstepping its authority by intervening directly in military and law enforcement matters, asserting that by instructing draft officials to issue conscription orders and directing police actions, the court has assumed powers reserved for the executive branch.
In addition, Peter raised concerns about the implications for minority rights, questioning who will defend the Jewish minority’s ability to achieve protections through parliamentary means if such efforts are routinely struck down as violations of majority equality.
In his concluding remarks, Peter also directed criticism at right-wing figures who support the court’s actions because they favor increased chareidi enlistment. He warned that backing what he views as judicial overreach for short-term political gain is a serious mistake, and argued that the right must undergo a “cultural revolution” to recognize what he described as the court’s use of the draft issue as a political tool to undermine democratic norms, independent of the broader debate over military service.
{Matzav.com}