The upheaval inside Degel HaTorah is showing no signs of subsiding following the removal of veteran lawmakers Moshe Gafni and Uri Maklev from the party slate, with the party-affiliated Israeli Yated Ne’eman now launching a blistering attack on some of their aides and revealing a new policy that will give the party’s rabbinic committee authority over the appointment of parliamentary staff.
The extraordinary broadside comes just days after Gafni and Maklev, two of Degel HaTorah’s most prominent representatives for decades, were informed that their political careers were coming to an end in a manner that triggered widespread criticism, including from figures within the party itself.
Neither Gafni nor Maklev was summoned to a formal meeting at which the decision was presented to them. Instead, letters notifying them of their removal were delivered late at night. In Gafni’s case, the letter was reportedly left in his mailbox after the messenger received no response at the door. The manner in which the longtime lawmakers were dismissed generated considerable anger, including among people closely identified with Degel HaTorah.
Against that backdrop, Yated Ne’eman published an unusually harsh article Tuesday under the headline “We Cannot Remain Silent,” directing its criticism not at Gafni and Maklev themselves, but at some of the aides and advisers who worked alongside them.
The newspaper stressed that its accusations were not directed at all of the lawmakers’ staff members, but rather at a “minority of known individuals” whom it accused of orchestrating a behind-the-scenes campaign to prevent the replacement of the veteran representatives.
According to Yated, after those aides learned that party leaders were considering replacing Gafni and Maklev, they “launched a media incitement campaign and a public relations operation,” allegedly using the positions and access they had obtained through their work for the lawmakers to fight the decision.
The newspaper went further, accusing the individuals of having “harmed those who sent them and spat into the well from which they drink,” and alleging that they cooperated with members of the media in an effort to derail the leadership change.
Yated also charged that the aides “cooperated with media figures seeking to introduce foreign elements into Chareidi Jewry,” while participating in what it described as a “campaign of fabricated smears” against Degel HaTorah’s leadership.
The article additionally accused some of the aides of leaking information during the highly sensitive negotiations surrounding Israel’s draft law and the status of yeshiva bochurim, arguing that such conduct went far beyond the legitimate responsibilities of parliamentary staff.
One of the most striking portions of the Yated article addressed the widespread descriptions of Gafni and Maklev’s departure as a “dismissal” and a “humiliation.”
Rather than accepting that characterization of how the veteran lawmakers were treated, the newspaper suggested that much of the narrative itself had been manufactured by the aides and others surrounding them.
According to the article, the aides and their associates repeatedly circulated claims that Gafni and Maklev had been dismissed and humiliated until, eventually, “they began believing these stories themselves.”
That contention, however, comes against the backdrop of criticism that extended well beyond the offices of the two departing lawmakers. Veteran Degel HaTorah figures and rabbonim serving on the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah were also reported to have reservations about either the decision or the manner in which it was carried out.
According to reports, Rav Meir Tzvi Bergman and Rav Boruch Dov Povarsky did not sign the letter removing the lawmakers, while conflicting reports emerged regarding the position of Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch.
As a result, the criticism surrounding the episode cannot easily be attributed entirely to a public-relations campaign by disgruntled aides, since reservations about the process were also heard from within the senior ranks of the Litvishe establishment itself.
Yated, however, presented a different account of how the episode unfolded, maintaining that efforts had initially been made to reach an understanding with the veteran representatives that would allow the changing of the guard to take place respectfully and with appropriate recognition of their decades of public service.
According to the newspaper, those attempts were instead met with a “coordinated and brazen public campaign created by those aides and their collaborators.”
The article went so far as to connect that alleged campaign to the controversial manner in which Gafni and Maklev were ultimately informed of their removal.
Yated claimed that after rabbonim and community leaders complained about the conduct of the aides, a decision was made to bring the matter to a swift conclusion and deliver the decision to Gafni and Maklev through a personal messenger.
The newspaper thus offered an explanation that effectively reverses the criticism heard in recent days. Rather than portraying the unusual late-night delivery of the dismissal letters as the source of the public outrage, Yated placed some responsibility for the manner in which the episode ended on the aides and the campaign it says they conducted.
But perhaps the most consequential revelation in the article concerned what will happen going forward.
Yated disclosed that Degel HaTorah has adopted a new policy governing the appointment of aides to its elected representatives.
“Beginning with the coming term, each of Degel HaTorah’s public representatives will be required to receive the approval of the movement’s Rabbinic Committee for the appointment of an aide, with each appointment to be considered individually,” the newspaper reported.
The new rule represents a significant expansion of party oversight. Until now, much of the controversy surrounding Degel HaTorah’s internal restructuring centered on who would determine the identities of its Knesset members and the composition of its electoral slate. The latest announcement indicates that oversight will now extend inside the lawmakers’ offices themselves, with the selection of their closest staff members also requiring approval.
Supporters of the new arrangement are likely to view it as a mechanism for preventing parliamentary aides from developing independent power bases or working against the direction established by Degel HaTorah’s rabbinic leadership.
At the same time, the decision comes amid criticism in recent days over the concentration of authority and control within Degel HaTorah’s internal apparatus. The new policy further broadens that oversight: The party leadership will have authority not only over who serves as an MK, but also over who may work alongside that representative.
{Matzav.com}