In a closed article, it should be noted that the difference between the allotted dates stems from the various complements required in the staff work regarding some of the steps, as well as wishes - Legal or Professional - that have arisen about them and require, according to what is stated in the update notice, additional clarification.
- Prior to the adoption of the aforementioned decisions, the competent authorities will be presented with the legal and professional reasons for which the stipulation of such a stipulation was recommended; this will be done by the relevant professional bodies (including those of the Ministry of Finance) and the legal counsel to the government. In the circumstances, we would like to emphasize the obvious: the decisions must be made taking into account the provisions of the judgment, in which it has already been determined that economic measures are required in order to promote the enforcement of the duty to conscript. If decisions are made that are inconsistent with the position of the professional bodies, it will be necessary to explain this, while referring to the provisions of the judgment. In addition to the aforesaid, with regard to the steps in respect of which a decision must be made whether to take a particular step, it is clear that it will also be possible to take into account various considerations and difficulties that were raised in the pleadings (whether professional, legal, or legal), and which have not yet been fully clarified.
- We would also like to emphasize that the aforesaid does not exhaust the necessary actions; far from it. This is only a first step, in favor of initiating action in the direction of enforcing the provisions of the Security Service Law and implementing the judgment. This means, inter alia, that with regard to the steps regarding which it was noted in the Notice of Update that further examination and in-depth examination is required – as well as with regard to other possible actions detailed there – one should not remain silent; As stated above, the relevant parties must act in favor of completing the staff work and making operative decisions – preferably one hour earlier. Time is pressing.
- We also saw fit to recall, further to what was stated in the update notice on behalf of the State respondents regarding "an attempt to overcome the steps taken to implement the judgment on the issue of conscription, as well as other related rulings relating to the provision of benefits to draft evaders", that the judgment explicitly states that "to the extent that the policy that will be determined will enable the creation of bypass funding channels, it will not be viewed as effective, and in any case, as fulfilling the required conditions" (paragraph 66). In other words, and let's say it, "in Rachel, your little daughter": the creation of bypass funding channels contradicts the provisions of the judgment, and directly undermines the government's duty to act to enforce the provisions of the Defense Service Law.
The Criminal Sphere and the Conduct of the Police
- In the announcement of the update on behalf of the State Respondents, it was reported that the IDF is taking various actions in order to increase and improve enforcement on the criminal level. Nevertheless, the data presented to us are very disturbing. This is even if we accept the data presented by the State Respondents as they are (even though the Petitioners have considerable claims in this regard). Thus, according to the announcement of the update, the number of non-commissioned officers who have been declared evaders or for whom Order 12 has been issued is about 76,000, about 80% of whom are ultra-Orthodox (while for a significant part of the group that received an exemption by virtue of Chapter C1 of the Law, sufficient time has not yet passed for the issuance of Order 12, so that the number is expected to increase significantly in the near future).
- However, in contrast to the very large share of members of the ultra-Orthodox community among the group of dodgers, their share among the group of dodgers for whom steps have been taken on the criminal level is very small. Thus, between January 1, 2025 and January 15, 2026, 123 draft evaders were arrested as a result of arrests initiated by the Military Police, of whom 17 were members of the ultra-Orthodox public from the relevant group – e., only about 14%; out of 442 indictments filed against evaders in 2025, 81 were filed against those obligated to enlist members of the ultra-Orthodox public – i.e., only about 18%; and of the 96 indictments filed against evaders in January-February 2026, 7 were filed against those obligated to enlist members of the ultra-Orthodox public – i.e., only about 7%. Thus, the scope of enforcement – small compared to the scope of the violation; despite the fact that members of the ultra-Orthodox public constitute an overwhelming majority of the evading public (as noted, at least about 80%), the enforcement of the mandatory conscription vis-à-vis this public – stands at very low rates, to say the least.
- To what has been said must be added, with the necessary caution, that at least in accordance with the data presented by the petitioners, it is not impossible that we are looking at the tip of the iceberg, and the actual situation is even more serious; In any case, there is no dispute that the situation is expected to deteriorate significantly in the near future, with the passage of the period of time after which it will be possible to issue Order 12 for all non-commissioned officers who received an exemption by virtue of chapter C1. It is very difficult to exaggerate the severity of the picture that emerges from the data; both in terms of the scope of actual enforcement and in terms of compliance with the obligation to equal enforcement.
- In this context, we were informed, both in writing and in an oral hearing, that even at this time, the police refrain from detaining evaders and deserters during random encounters, despite its authority to do so, which is enshrined in section 52(a) of the Security Service Law (cf. what is stated in paragraph 54 of the judgment); and that, according to the police, it cannot assist in actions initiated by the Military Police to arrest deserters and evaders. This is despite the fact that in order to carry out such actions in a civilian environment, the Military Police is required to cooperate with the police.
- This policy of the police, whose essence is not to carry out enforcement actions against evaders in Haredi population centers, was justified by the fact that these actions are often accompanied by extensive disturbances of the peace, and that in order to carry them out, the police require additional manpower. Here, too, we can only say the It is clear that the police's resources are not unlimited, and that it has broad discretion to set priorities in enforcement, while balancing various considerations and interests. At the same time, "the complete refusal of the police to exercise its powers, in the sense of leaving the authority as a stone that has no opposite, is not covered by claims of priorities; and budgetary constraints or insufficient resources are not a hanger on which any cessation can be relied upon" (High Court of Justice 30539-08-25 Aluminum Construction C. L. Israel (1992) inTax Appeal v. Israel Police, para. 6 (September 25, 2025)). Indeed, "the authorities responsible for enforcing the law – and in this case, the Israel Police – are not permitted to disavow this role, which is 'one of the main functions of any government'" (High Court of Justice 5078/20 Fadida v. Israel Police, para. 33 (August 19, 2020); see also, among many: High Court of Justice 7839/19 Anonymous v. Israel Police, para. 23 (October 19, 2020)).
- Against this background, the case law reiterated that there is a distinction between setting priorities in enforcement, in which, as a rule, the court refrains from intervening; and "cases of clear and clear disavowal of this duty, unreasonable avoidance of law enforcement, or selective enforcement –e., focusing enforcement efforts on some of the members of the relevant equality group, whether purely arbitrarily or out of extraneous considerations", in which "there will be room for judicial intervention" (HCJ 4475/17 Friedman v. Israel Police, para. 4 (February 17, 2019); see also: High Court of Justice 551/99 established inTax Appeal v. Customs and VAT Administration, IsrSC 55(1) 112, 125-126 (2000)).
- In the present case, and without taking lightly the difficulties that may accompany such enforcement actions, it appears that the police are not acting in accordance with its duty to exercise its powers and enforce the law on evaders from among the ultra-Orthodox public. This cannot be accepted; the police are obligated to assist the army's enforcement authorities, and to begin to act to enforce the duty to enforce the conscription obligation on members of the ultra-Orthodox public as well. This is all the more so, given that we are dealing with, as stated, a "conscious and ongoing violation of the Mass Law" (paragraph 76 of the judgment). It is not superfluous to note that the social message that arises from the fact that the police refrain from acting specifically against those who try to thwart enforcement actions by means of broad disturbances of the peace – in the sense of "a sinner is rewarded" – is a message that cannot be reconciled. We should not accept a situation in which "a man of arms is his land" (Iyov 22:8) and "all the dalim are a man" (see also what we said in this context in paragraph 53 of the judgment).
The things are clear; hopefully we will not be required to repeat them.
- Thus, the operative determinations that we ordered in our judgment in this context remain in place, and we have no choice but to repeat them: the state is required to act with due diligence and as quickly as possible to take real criminal proceedings against evaders from among the ultra-Orthodox public, on the basis of an egalitarian standard in relation to the general public. In particular, and without exhaustion, a policy of refraining from exercising the powers of detention or arrest against a person whom the police identify as having evaded military service in connection with its other activity should not be appropriate.
Upon completion
- On April 13, 2026, the day after the oral hearing on the applications, an update notice was submitted by the Cabinet Secretary, in which it was reported that on the same day, the Ministerial Team convened, and decided to "present to the Cabinet Plenum at its next meeting [...], the summary of the discussions held by the team so far, the State Attorney's Office's response, which included a detailed reference to various economic enforcement measures and the question of the need or lack of legislation to advance them, the position of the professional levels in government ministries, the minutes of a hearing in the case of the High Court of Justice [...], in order for the government to make a decision on the matter at" The notice did not contain a commitment to take any operative steps, nor did it specify the date of the planned meeting. This is not the first time, nor the second, that we are in a scenario of general statements and requests for future updates; Although in the past we have granted requests such as this, experience shows that they have not been used for the purpose of actually advancing the handling of the issue. However, we reiterate: the duty to act to enforce the provisions of the law and to implement the judgment rests with the government, and accordingly, it is given discretion as to the manner of implementation. As long as the government decides, genuinely and sincerely, to make practical decisions in accordance with the principles of the ruling, we will be able to bow our heads and get up from our seats. We will even welcome this.
- In summary: We are ordering the implementation of the provisions in accordance with paragraphs 19-20 and 30 above. An update notice on the implementation of all the provisions – both on the administrative-economic level and on the enforcemental-criminal level – will be submitted by June 1, 2026. The notice will also include reference to additional actions taken in the matter, including the progress of the examination regarding the benefits listed in the third group.