NO ANSWERS FOR THE DAY AFTER? Degel HaTorah’s Pindrus Urges Chareidi Voters to Stand Firm, Admits Draft Battle Will Continue After Elections
With Israel’s elections just three weeks away, MK Yitzchok Pindrus, the second-ranking representative of Degel HaTorah, is urging the chareidi community to turn out in force at the polls, arguing that a strong showing is essential to demonstrate that the community has not been broken by the ongoing campaign against bnei yeshiva. At the same time, he acknowledged that even after the election, the confrontation with the Supreme Court, government officials, and the legal establishment is unlikely to end.
In an extensive interview with journalist Avi Blum on Kol Chai Radio, Pindrus, who holds the third position on the United Torah Judaism list, defended his party’s record amid growing frustration over the arrests of yeshiva bochurim, the military draft crisis, and the difficulties confronting chareidi educational institutions.
Pindrus sought to frame the upcoming election as a struggle over the ability of chareidi Jews to maintain their way of life in Eretz Yisroel, rather than simply a referendum on the government’s accomplishments or the failure to pass legislation protecting bnei yeshiva.
He declared that there is no such thing as persecuting those who learn Torah and having it ultimately produce a positive outcome. According to Pindrus, the present confrontation extends far beyond government funding and coalition agreements, touching on the fundamental right of a chareidi Jew to live according to his beliefs.
When Blum challenged him with the argument that the chareidi community has managed to preserve its way of life despite the current coalition rather than because of it, Pindrus did not directly address the government’s responsibility. Instead, he argued that the very intensity of the campaign against the chareidi public reflects the community’s remarkable growth and success.
He maintained that outside forces are attempting to provoke unrest, portray chareidim as illegitimate, and create the impression that the community is beginning to fracture under pressure.
A decline in support for the chareidi parties, he warned, would be seized upon by their opponents as evidence that even within the chareidi community, support for lomdei Torah is weakening.
Asked what the chareidi parties could point to as concrete achievements, Pindrus cited the continued operation of an extensive network of Torah institutions and educational systems serving hundreds of thousands of students, with budgets totaling billions of shekels.
He argued that substantial funding had been preserved despite legal efforts to restrict or eliminate it. However, he also suggested that publicly detailing those accomplishments could backfire by generating headlines that would be used against the chareidi community.
The more difficult questions concerned what would happen after the election.
Pindrus argued that a strong electoral showing would send a message to those pursuing measures against the chareidi public and could reduce their motivation to continue the confrontation.
Nevertheless, he offered no specific plan for resolving the draft crisis or ending the legal challenges confronting the Torah world.
He acknowledged that the struggle with the Supreme Court, the Finance Ministry’s Budget Department, and the government bureaucracy would continue into the next Knesset, with periods of progress and setbacks.
The question of future coalition partnerships also produced no definitive answer.
Pindrus reiterated United Torah Judaism’s position that it would not enter any government without an arrangement protecting the status of bnei yeshiva.
When asked whether the party might consider joining forces with politicians on the opposite side of the political spectrum, he said it was difficult to envision cooperating with those who had made opposition to Yiddishkeit a central part of their political agenda.
Still, he stopped short of categorically ruling out every possible arrangement, emphasizing that such decisions would ultimately be made by the Gedolei Yisroel.
Blum also raised the possibility that United Torah Judaism could remain outside a coalition while supporting legislation that, although imperfect, would provide some measure of protection for yeshiva bochurim.
Pindrus again avoided making a firm commitment. He said he had difficulty imagining such an arrangement and maintained that the question was not presently relevant, returning instead to the party’s demand for a resolution of the draft issue.
The interview also addressed government involvement in chareidi education, particularly the controversy over English instruction in chareidi schools.
Although Pindrus himself speaks English, he said he does not teach the language to his own children.
He argued that the central issue is not whether English should be included in the curriculum, but who has the authority to make educational decisions for chareidi families.
According to Pindrus, those decisions belong to parents and their rabbonim, rather than government officials seeking to impose their own educational standards.
He sharply criticized attempts by state authorities to dictate what should be taught in seminaries, Chinuch Atzmai schools, and exempt educational institutions.
Pindrus said the government was entitled to offer financial incentives to institutions willing to expand their curricula, but should not threaten the continued existence of schools that choose to follow the educational guidance of their rabbonim.
Another sensitive issue arose when Blum questioned Pindrus about political cooperation with Otzma Yehudit, the party led by Itamar Ben Gvir, who openly encourages Jews to ascend Har Habayis despite the longstanding prohibition issued by Gedolei Yisroel.
Pindrus responded that political partnerships are generally formed with those whose positions are closer to one’s own and with whom practical cooperation is possible.
At the same time, he emphasized that cooperation on political matters does not eliminate the obligation to protest actions that violate halacha.
He said that ascending Har Habayis must be opposed publicly and on halachic grounds, stressing that anyone who follows Daas Torah recognizes that entering Har Habayis is strictly forbidden.
{Matzav.com}
