In an unprecedentedly harsh critique, former minister Meir Porush has launched a scathing attack on senior figures within Agudas Yisroel, particularly the secretary of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah, accusing them of undermining the decisions of the council and misleading government officials while claiming to represent the will of the gedolim.
In a lengthy interview with HaMevaser reporters Eliezer Shulman and Meir Berger, Porush lays out his version of how the current crisis unfolded—where no law exists to protect the status of bnei yeshiva—and he directly faults individuals from within his own party for distorting reality and bypassing proper authority.
Rejecting recent doomsday claims that chareidim may need to leave Eretz Yisroel, Porush turned the argument on its head: “The yishuv Yehudi was here before the state. If you can’t tolerate us, you get out. We’ll guard Eretz Yisroel with the power of Torah.”
He went on to recount his perspective on how the political handling of the yeshiva deferment law unraveled.
“At the start of this term, I acted in accordance with the mission I was assigned by the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah—to lead the effort to enshrine the status of bnei yeshiva in law. We held numerous meetings, including at the Prime Minister’s Office and with the Defense Ministry. In each of them, I firmly demanded immediate legislation.”
Porush emphasized that at no point was he approached by the prime minister with requests for postponements, and any such efforts bypassed him. “There were people who pushed for delays and supported them—and those decisions were made in meetings of party leaders. You know who’s part of those discussions.”
He said that after the war began, contacts were paused, but when talks resumed, he was shocked to learn of them through media reports. “Some of these meetings were attended by inexperienced activists claiming to speak for Agudas Yisroel. I briefed the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah at the time.”
Porush clarified that although he was asked by one rebbe to investigate what was going on, and he had the means to do so, he had no role in the actual negotiations over the proposed new law. “From my standpoint, any talks conducted without the approval of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah are meaningless.”
He then launched into a blow-by-blow account of the events leading to the current impasse. “After the previous law was struck down by the Supreme Court, we spent years trying to develop a new solution. As we headed into the most recent election, it was clear that resolving the status of bnei yeshiva would be our top priority.”
Porush described how during coalition talks, the chareidi parties made it clear that this issue came first. The plan, developed with legal expert Yitzchak Miron, involved two tracks: passing a Basic Law recognizing Torah study as a core national value and updating the military service law with broad coalition agreement.
But even then, Porush had reservations. “I was vocal, even in HaMevaser, that delaying legislation was a mistake. The coalition at the time passed four Basic Laws quickly—dealing with Netanyahu, Smotrich, Ben Gvir, and Deri. Why not ours? There was no public opposition at the time. It could’ve been done quietly and efficiently.”
After the war broke out, a new working group began to draft a revised law—without his knowledge or participation, despite him being the official Moetzes representative. “I was even asked to sign a check for 60,000 shekels for a new attorney I’d never heard of, supposedly hired to review the new bill. No one ever explained why Miron was replaced. I still don’t know what legal advice was given.”
Porush revealed that when the prime minister’s office later brought a statement before the Cabinet claiming “significant progress” had been made with the chareidi parties, he asked what that referred to. “Cabinet Secretary Yossi Fuchs replied: ‘It’s substantial enlistment quotas and financial sanctions for noncompliance. That’s the package.’”
He responded bluntly in the meeting: “The Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah was not consulted on this. There’s no agreement.” When he told Minister Yariv Levin that there was no approval from the Moetzes, Levin replied, “Of course there was—from all three Moetzes.” Porush pressed him again: “I’m talking about what you’re proposing now.” Levin retorted, “You can’t rewrite history.”
Wanting clarity, Porush later reviewed the official cabinet transcript and confirmed the exact exchange.
He continued: “I asked around, and those who were part of the closed-door talks told me the agreement included 4,800 recruits in year one, another 4,800 in year two (later raised to 5,700), a 10-year goal of 50% enlistment, and both institutional and individual sanctions against Torah learners.”
“These are the facts,” Porush stated. “People in Agudas Yisroel cut deals and misled Likud into believing it was backed by the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah.”
He noted that he sent a letter to the Moetzes secretary reminding him of his authorized role and warning that it was inconceivable for these moves to happen behind his back. “And recently it became public that the secretary not only knew and remained silent, but was himself involved. In my view, that is extremely serious.”
When asked how he responds to claims that he doesn’t follow the Moetzes, Porush fired back: “I’m used to being attacked. But this accusation—that I disregard the Moetzes—is the one that hurts most. The Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah themselves know the truth, and maybe now their communities will too.”
Porush said he keeps a file in his office titled “Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah,” containing dozens of instances over the years showing how he acted based on their directives, including high-profile issues like prisoner swaps, the Ayman Odeh vote, sovereignty in Yehudah and Shomron, and leaving the government.
“Even when I rarely speak with certain MKs, before the vote on the hostage deal, I asked the Gerrer Rebbe’s representative for his view. There’s not a single major vote where I don’t know the stance of every member of the Moetzes.”
As for what lies ahead, Porush warned: “Some people go around issuing demands in public while they or their aides secretly agreed to very different terms behind closed doors. Now they blame others for a mess they themselves helped create. I’m not here to judge—but the public should consider carefully who’s behind these headlines and what they’re trying to distract from.”
{Matzav.com}