The article says the MIK Moshe Saada (Likud proposed a law to grant additional special benefits and whatnot to reservists. One of the clauses int he proposal states that any institution whose students do not draft to the IDF will not get any government allocations/budgets.
UTJ found this clause and says that this clause presents an existential danger to the yeshivas.
According to Yated, UTJ has let the Likud know that if this clause remains included in the law to be presented UTJ will see itself as not obligated to vote on other laws presented by the Likud demanding coalition support.
A few points:
1. Didnt the UTJ gedolim recently plan for decoupling the yeshivas from the government budgets and went out and raised $110 million (plus)? Why would this be such a serious problem for the yeshivas if this was already planned for?
2. Again, like what I pointed out yesterday, interestingly the threat is not to leave the government but to not vote on Likud law proposals in line with the coalition. A law proposal that UTJ is considering to be a serious threat against the yeshivas and UTJ isnt even bluffing with threats to leave the coalition!
I must say, it does seem that even though PM Netanyahu and some others in the Likud might not be on board yet, many in the Likud have had enough with the situation. They all know and recognize the crisis they would be causing when they say they won't support this or that by other coalition members, including the Haredi parties, and they are causing the crises anyway..
------------------------------------------------------
Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel
Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel
------------------------------------------------------
The Chareidi leadership is insistent on ensuring the Chareidi community fits all the criteria for a parasite.
ReplyDeleteSide point: You write, "One of the clauses in the proposal states that any institution whose students do not draft to the IDF will not get any government allocations/budgets." It seems to me that I have seen this usage of the term "draft" a lot lately, but it sounds off to me. I am much more familiar with using it in the passive when referring to the potential conscripts. Meaning, the army does the drafting, and the soldiers get drafted. Do you know where you picked up this usage from?
ReplyDeletethats how it is used here. it is the translation of giyus or legayes, but to be conscripted also works
DeleteCan you clarify what you mean by that? That it is a usage specific to a dialect of English spoken in Israel? I don't mean "draft" as opposed to "conscript." I mean writing "whose students do not draft" (active verb describing what the students do or don't do) as opposed to writing "whose students are not drafted" (passive verb describing what happens to the students).
Deletewhen the yeshivas encourage the boys to not conscript when they are meant to but to continue learning in yeshiva, those yeshivas would get sanctioned (according to the clause). ie when the eligible young men do not respond to their call up notice. maybe they dont even go to the draft board's first notice for registration. I think I am understanding your point and maybe I am using it improperly.
DeleteI do not think you are understanding my point at all. I am making a simple linguistic observation. Consider the following the sentences:
Delete1: Jim was drafted to the army last week.
2: Jim drafted to the army last week.
3: The army drafted Jim last week.
Do any of these sound more correct to you? To my ear, 1and 3 are correct, and 2 is not. But your blog is not the only place I have seen sentences with the form of sentence 2. I am wondering if there is something broader I am missing, or if for some reason that usage is specific to people in Israel writing in English.
gotcha. I might be using it wrong. I am pretty sure I have heard it used that way and it is common speak or parlance but maybe it is just incorrect usage
Delete