In the wake of yesterday’s landmark decision by Israel’s High Court of Justice to declare the Tal Law unconstitutional, the Knesset was left to deal with the fallout – and proceeded to reject two Kadima-sponsored bills that sought to legislate mandatory military or national service for all Israeli citizens.

The Tal Law, enacted in 2002, was intended to promote enlistment of Haredi men in the IDF by exempting draft-age yeshiva students from military service for a prescribed period of time. In a 6-3 ruling, the High Court determined that the law is unconstitutional and cannot be extended by the Knesset in its present form when it expires on August 1. The Tal law is a temporary law that must be renewed every five years.

And so the Knesset convened Wednesday to deliberate on one of the most controversial and polarizing issues in Israel today. Kadima was the first party to offer its vision for an alternative to the Tal Law, saying that it proposed both bills “to promote equality between all sectors in shouldering the national effort.” The National Service bill, which was proposed by MK Yoel Hasson and would have required ultra-Orthodox Jews and Arabs to perform national or military service, was rejected by a vote of 55 – 27. MK Nachman Shai proposed the other bill – the Defense Service bill, which was rejected by a vote of 40 – 23.

Kadima has increasingly cast itself as the leader in the crusade to end what it describes as preferential treatment for the Haredi demographic. Chairwoman Tzipi Livni continued to bemoan the status quo in the aftermath of the High Court decision: “This injustice has been perpetuated for far too long. No one has a monopoly on prayer.”

“It’s time we stopped lying to ourselves,” she lamented, “the IDF is no longer the ‘people’s army’ and we didn’t need the High Court of Justice to tell us that the burden isn’t distributed equally.

“For years we have been trying to reach an agreement and for years, Haredi politicians have been abusing the weaknesses shown by the other politicians here,” she continued. “It is time to say – enough is enough. It is time we changed the rules of the game once and for all.”

Livni, seeking to head off charges that she is promoting divisiveness and an anti-religious platform, insisted that the bills were proposed “for the unity of Israel. We don’t want an internal strife but we won’t relent – we will meet you with love but we will also meet you with draft orders, either for the IDF or for civic and national service. There is no choice. You must serve beside us…You will still pray – in the IDF, in the police, in the Fire Department and in hospitals…This miscarriage of justice – draft dodging – has been going on for too long.”

The decision to revoke the Tal law has been widely and predictably denounced by religious parties, while Prime Minister Netanyahu released a statement Tuesday, saying: “As I stated even before the High Court of Justice decision, the Tal Law in its current format will not be continued, and in the coming months we will formulate a new law that will lead to a more just change in the burden of all sectors of Israeli society.”

Foreign Minister and Yisrael Beteinu head Avigdor Lieberman pledged that his party will also propose an alternative to the Tal Law whereby “everyone will serve the state.”

“I have no expectation of seeing masses of Haredim and minorities suddenly flooding the air force cadets’ course or being placed in the elite units, but they can certainly join the national effort. I see no reason why a Haredi man can’t sit in front of a computer in the army and make his contribution or be part of the national service.”

In a possible veiled threat to the Prime Minister, Lieberman said that the High Court decision “helps the coalition understand it finally has to take decisions rather than waffle.”

Analysts and politicians alike have speculated that the matter of Haredi deferment and exemption from military/national service is the one issue that could cause Netanyahu’s heretofore stable coalition to fall apart. Shas, the largest ultra-Orthodox party in the coalition, appeared to be seeking to allay such concerns. When asked if the coalition will be threatened by the ruling, Shas Party spokesman Yakov Betzalel responded: “No, no, no. I don’t see it in the offing.” Still, the coalition seems headed for difficult days ahead, as Betzalel expressed confidence that Haredi males would be able to continue their Yeshiva study, and predicted that a new law would be passed that would reflect “minor changes” to the current law. “From my experience, the ultra-Orthodox community will not accept even short-term enlistment…but let’s see what will happen.”

See also: Journalist: Secular Fear of Haredim Drove Court’s Rule on Service Deferments

Deputy Attorney-General Uri Keydar, representing the State on the issue of the constitutionality of the recently-passed Boycott Law, wrote that the law is constitutional even though it limited freedom of expression because it was narrowly tailored to specific calls for boycotts.

The state set out its position before the High Court of Justice Tuesday in response to three petitions asking the court to revoke the legislation.

The law, which was passed in July 2011, grants Israeli targets of public boycotts the right to seek financial redress for damages in court. The law also empowers the finance minister to prohibit entities supporting boycotts from participating in state tenders.

The petitioners claim that the law is unconstitutional because it violates the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty by stifling freedom of expression, with specific concern for criticism of government policies and actions in Judea and Samaria.

“The law does not prevent anyone from publishing a public call for the government to alter its policies in regard to Judea and Samaria as part of any opposition to government policy in that region,” Keydar wrote in response.

Likud ministers Benny Begin, Michael Eitan, and Dan Meridor staunchly opposed a bill presented at the Likud ministers’ meeting Sunday morning that would legalize outposts in Judea and Samaria.

The proposed bill states that if a land owner in Judea or Samaria fails to take legal action within four years of the moment a home is built on his land, the structure will not be torn down. In such cases, the landowner will receive other forms of compensation.

The three ministers implored Prime Minister Netanyahu to demolish Migron in accordance with the High Court’s ruling.

By a vote of 6-5 late Wednesday night, the High Court rejected petitions against the 2003 law limiting the reunification of Palestinian and Arab-Israeli couples.

Judge Asher Grunis, poised to become the next President of the Israeli Supreme Court, led the majority, writing that “Human rights are not a prescription for national suicide.”

The 2003 law states that the interior minister may grant citizenship ” if he is convinced that the applicant  identifies with the State of Israel and its goals, and that he or his family performed a significant act to promote the security, economy or some other important matter of the State.”

Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch and four other dissenting justices described the freedom to marry as being at the core of democratic principles.

“The blow, as presented, to family life must be viewed against the certain harm, given past experience, to the lives and bodies of Israelis,” Grunis wrote, in anticipation of their argument.

The High Court of Justice on Sunday rejected a petition contesting the appointment of Jerusalem District Court Judge Noam Sohlberg to the Supreme Court. The court ruled that Sohlberg’s status as a resident of a community in Judea does not affect his fitness to be appointed to the bench.

Yesh Gvul, a leftist organization opposed to a Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria, claimed that Sohlberg’s residence in the community contravenes international law, and as a result, his appointment was “invalid and must be canceled.”

Presiding judge, Isaac Amit, wrote: “I checked the Basic Law: The Judiciary . . . and nowhere did I find that [Sohlberg's] residence in Alon Shvut constitutes a hindrance to his serving as a judge.”

Israeli medical residents, who have been on strike for months, with many of them going as far as tendering their resignations, have agreed to return to the negotiating table today.

The two latest sticking point between the residents and the Finance Ministry is the duration of the agreement they are working on, during which time the residents won’t be allowed to strike again, and that residents will need to sign in and out on employee time clocks, a condition originally agreed upon between the Israel Medical association (IMA) and the Finance Ministry in August during the doctor’s strike that preceded this one.

The Finance Ministry wants the residents to sign an agreement for 9 years to prevent a reoccurrence of these strikes in the near future, while the residents want the agreement to last no more than 3 years.

The residents, unhappy with the original agreement their IMA representatives signed off on demanded “social justice” for doctors and decided at that time to continue their protest, strike independently and even resign en masse.

The National Labor Court declared these mass resignations illegal.

Last week, the High Court of Justice ordered the residents back to work while they continued negotiations, but the residents refused to listen to the High Court’s order.

Many people feel that this conflict will be resolved with internal demographics and the ongoing integration of religious youth into the army and other state institutions. But this is not a question of majority vs. minority. The struggle is not against the secular but rather against the exile mentality of the religious, against their lack of willingness to take responsibility for national leadership in the name of the Jewish value of liberty. As long as this conflict is not resolved, we can be a large majority – but the High Court rule will still be able to sleep soundly.

      In the aftermath of the forcible evacuation of thousands of Jewish settlers from Gush Katif in 2005, legal protection for settlers and right-wing activists in Israel was virtually non-existent. Meanwhile, legal organizations dedicated to the defense of basic rights for Arabs and left-wing Jews were thriving.

      Stepping in to fill the vacuum was the Legal Forum for the Land of Israel, whose volunteer staff, comprised of Israel bar-certified attorneys and legal and financial experts, sought government accountability in cases involving the violation of settlers’ basic legal rights.

      The director of development of the Legal Forum for the Land of Israel, Moshe Eyal, recently discussed the accomplishments and objectives of his organization with The Jewish Press.

      The Jewish Press: What prompted the creation of the Legal Forum?

      Eyal: The Legal Forum was established in September 2004 in response to the changing policies of the Sharon government and the dangers such policies presented to the basic human rights of Jewish settlers in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

      My brother Nachie Eyal is the founder and director of the Legal Forum, and it was our view that a watchdog group of attorneys needed to be formed to challenge the laws of the Israeli government as it pertained to the rights of settlers.

      While Israel lacks a bill of rights, we still felt it was inherently unconstitutional to evict Jews from their homes as was done in Gush Katif in the summer of 2005. We now have a staff of 40 volunteer attorneys and more than 200 members – including economists, academics and other professionals.

      Before we arrived on the scene, the displaced settlers of Gush Katif had virtually no legal rights. We made it possible for them to sue for damages, both psychological and those relating to their property losses, in Israeli courts. Acting as legal counsel to those adversely affected by government policy, we took our cases to the Israeli Supreme Court and successfully sued for fair and equitable compensation for more than 600 families expelled from Gush Katif.

  We have also lobbied the High Court of Justice for one billion shekels in compensatory payments for Gaza expellees and have filed more than 25 motions in the High Court, 15 of which regard the unjust government action during the disengagement.

  What other issues does your organization consider of paramount importance from a legal perspective?

      We are seeking to create alliances with other human rights organizations to fight against rampant political corruption, to champion environmental issues, and to safeguard human rights.

      Subsequent to the recent evacuation of Jews from the Beit HaShalom building in Hebron, we filed a complaint against Avshalom Peled, the Hebron police commander, and the regional IDF spokesman for deliberately circulating a false rumor asserting that a Jewish activist had sprayed a police officer with acid and caused serious injuries.

      An investigation revealed that neither the ambulance drivers called to Hebron nor other medical officials had treated an officer for acid wounds. These false allegations made against Jewish activists were part of a government-orchestrated campaign of incitement against the settlers.

      In early December, before the launching of Operation Cast Lead, we entered an urgent appeal to the Supreme Court to stop the transfer of money to Gaza. The defense minister had approved the transfer of 100 million shekels to Gaza and we told the court that according to the law forbidding the financing of terrorism, this money transfer was neither legal nor ethical.

      In late October we stood up for the residents of Sderot by publicly condemning Attorney General Mazuz’s decision to suspend the move to limit the supply of electricity to Gaza. We felt the decision would help the residents of Gaza but ignore the suffering children of Sderot.

      You mentioned the plight of settlers in Hebron. What can be done to stop further police violence?

      Last August, our organization held a protest in which we sought unfettered access to Kever Rachel in Bethlehem. The demonstration was forcibly halted by the Border Police. During the scuffle that ensued, a correspondent for Israel National News was beaten, detained and questioned by police for filming a policeman hitting a young protestor. The correspondent’s camera was smashed as well.

      We sent an urgent letter to the chief of police, to the Judea and Samaria District commander, and to the head of the police internal affairs department demanding an immediate investigation. We stated emphatically that the arrest of and violence against a journalist crossed all red lines and represented a danger of descent into dark regimes.

      Is there a role for American Jews in the work of the Legal Forum?

      We want American Jews to know they can play a vital role in supporting a legal rights organization that is dedicated to crafting legislation to preserve Jewish land ownership in Israel. Those who support us should know that we work within the framework of the Israeli legal and political systems.

      We also lobby Knesset lawmakers on a regular basis with the aim of achieving social and political progress, and we’ve set up legal aid offices for the sole purpose of assisting Israeli citizens of the former Gaza and northern Samaria communities.

      Anyone interested in helping us can contact Avi Goldstein (avi_goldstein@netzero.net or 917-355-0199) or Daniel Tauber (Daniel.Tauber@gmail.com or 917-497-7358).