Finally, Section 26J states that "An application shall not be regarded as a request for an exemption from service or a postponement of service under any law, and the committee's determination under section 26i(d) shall not be regarded as reasons for granting an exemption from service for deferral of service under any law or as an arrangement of status.". This means that the exemption from the arrest and enforcement proceedings granted by the amendment does not exempt the applicant from the duty of service that applies by virtue of the Defense Service Law, which will ostensibly continue to apply to him. In other words, this is not an exception to the application of the norm itself, but 'only' from its enforcement.
These are the main points of the arrangement that was established in the amendment. Before I go into detail about it, and in order to be able to understand their nature, I will briefly describe the legislative process.
The Legislative Process
- The process began in 2021, when the 24th Knesset and the previous government served. On August 12,2021, the Memorandum of the Defense Service Law (Amendment No.) for the Integration of Yeshiva Students, 5781-2021 was submitted. On January 17,2022, the bill based on the memorandum (Government Bill 1454,60) was brought to the plenum for first reading - but was not accepted. Two days later, January 19,2022, another government bill was published, based on the same memorandum of law (Government Bill 1502,522). The bill states that the purpose of the amendment is "to reduce inequality in recruitment to regular service, including through the integration of members of the ultra-Orthodox public into national-civilian service, and to promote their integration into the employment market and their contribution to the state economy, all while recognizing the importance of Torah study." On January 31,2022, the bill passed its first reading - and was not advanced beyond that.
- On June 10,2024, the 25th Knesset applied the law of continuity to the bill. The decision to apply the law of continuity was passed despite the opposition of the Attorney General, who believed that given the sharp change in circumstances that has occurred since the bill was approved in its first reading - the events of October 7,2023, and the protracted war that followed - the bill is not based on an up-to-date factual basis. In a letter dated May 16,2024, the Deputy Attorney General noted in this context, inter alia, that the proposal "does not embody the needs of the IDF in the reality of a protracted, multi-front war; it is brought to the approval of the Ministerial Committee without the position of the Minister of Defense, who is the minister responsible for the army's force buildup by virtue of the Basic Law, and without the position of the defense establishment, whose opinion is even more valid in times of war."
- The Knesset Legal Advisor was also of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case, the application of the law of continuity raises a difficulty. In an opinion dated June 6,2024, the Attorney General insisted that, taking into account the position of the Legal Advisor to the Government; the change in circumstances that occurred due to the outbreak of the war; and in the absence of an "up-to-date professional and factual infrastructure", inter alia, against the background of the lack of positions of the Minister of Defense and the defense establishment - it may not be justified to "continue the discussion of the bill from the stage it reached in the outgoing Knesset." The opinion also noted that "to the extent that the continuity proposal is accepted, the continuation of the legislative process must meet a high standard of proper legislative process." Subsequently, the Knesset Legal Advisor detailed the conditions that must be met, in her opinion, in order to overcome the difficulties arising from the application of the law of continuity in these circumstances. As part of this, it was noted that the committee must accept the positions of the Minister of Defense and the defense establishment during the discussions; it must consider the impact of the ongoing war on the bill; it must take into account the principles outlined in case law on this issue over the years, and more.
- Against the background of the above, and despite objections, the decision was made, and the bill returned to the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee for deliberations (a petition filed against the decision to apply the law of continuity was rejected, once it was determined that there was no room for intervention in the legislative process before it was completed; see: High Court of Justice 4769/24 Israeli Democracy Guard v. Ministerial Committee for Legislation [Nevo] (June 26,2025)). The committee held more than 40 hearings on the bill under the leadership of the committee's chairman, MK Yuli Edelstein, in which a wide range of issues related to the bill were discussed, while many relevant parties were heard.
- Subsequently, after MK Edelstein announced that the discussions had been exhausted, and that a text would now be formulated in preparation for the second and third readings, MK Ofir Katz, chairman of the coalition and chairman of the Knesset Committee, put forward a proposal on the agenda of the Knesset committee to appoint MK Boaz Bismuth to the position of chairman of the committee, under MK Edelstein. In an opinion submitted to the Knesset Committee on behalf of the Knesset Legal Advisor, it was noted that "the Knesset must refrain as much as possible from replacing an incumbent committee chair for political reasons, and take this step in exceptional cases"; and that in the circumstances of the case, and in particular in light of the in-depth legislative process that had taken place up to that stage in the bill, the replacement of the committee chairman for political considerations creates a flaw, the strength of which "will be dull to the extent that the committee acts under the chairmanship of the new chairman to formulate an appropriate response to all the issues that have arisen and will continue to come up in the committee's many deliberations, including the needs of the military and the defense establishment at this time, while addressing all issues that require regularization, including legal issues." Following these remarks, on August 4,2026, the Knesset Committee decided to remove MK Edelstein from his position, and approved the appointment of MK Bismuth in his place.
- Following the appointment of MK Bismuth as Chair of the Committee, discussions on the bill continued, and on November 27,2025, a version was published on behalf of the Committee Chairman, on the basis of which the discussions on the bill continued. This version included significant changes from MK Edelstein's outline, which are not our concern here. On May 20,2026, the committee's last discussion of the updated version took place, after 46 discussions on the bill chaired by MK Bismuth.
- On June 30,2026, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee laid before the committee a new version - different from the one that had been advanced by the committee up to that stage - on the basis of which the amendment was enacted. This follows a letter from the Cabinet Secretary dated June 26,2026, in which it was claimed, inter alia, that "the wave of arrests of yeshiva students and Torah students is causing a severe shock in the heart of the ultra-Orthodox public. Instead of bringing it closer , it is distancing. Instead of building trust, it breaks it, and instead of allowing for a discourse of responsibility, it creates a sense of persecution, pain and extremism." And that "these arrests of Torah scholars do not promote enlistment among the ultra-Orthodox public, but rather distance enlistment, and there is a real fear that the noose with the ultra-Orthodox public will be torn to the point of reaching civil war, God forbid." Therefore, "and in order to prevent a reversal of the trend to the point of a decline in the rate of enlistment, " it was proposed to promote the amendment in question.
- The committee held a number of discussions on the new outline presented by the committee chairman. The legal advisor to the committee, as well as the legal advisor to the Knesset, presented the committee members with very significant difficulties in the new version. In addition to the difficulties raised on the merits of the arrangement, the opinions on their behalf (dated June 29,2026, July 1,2026, and July 12,2026) noted, inter alia, that in light of the course of the proceeding - with an emphasis on the manner in which the law of continuity was applied, and the replacement of the committee chair during the discussions on the bill, as detailed above - the legislative process had to meet a very high standard; and that in addition to the purposes of the bill for which the law of continuity was applied, as well as of the various outlines that were presented during the discussions in the current Knesset, only the purpose of recognizing the importance of Torah study remained, while the other purposes - which were the main ones, with an emphasis on reducing inequality in the burden of conscription - were completely removed. They further noted that in the bill for which the law of continuity was applied, there was no arrangement relating to enforcement against deserters and evaders; that two of the most important arrangements included in the original bill, as well as in previous versions discussed by the committee - conscription targets and economic sanctions - were completely neglected; that other key arrangements have also been neglected, such as a mechanism for financial sanctions that can be imposed following a violation of the provisions of the arrangement or the submission of false statements, an effective supervision and control mechanism for compliance with the provisions of the arrangement, and more; that "a lack of time does not allow for an improper legislative process"; and that in practice, in the "bottom line, " we are dealing with a "very, very massive change, " so that we are dealing with a "completely different arrangement" - one that "does not pass not only the claim of a new issue [...], it also does not pass the tests for proper procedure."
- The Chief of Staff also opposed the amendment. In his letter, dated July 12,2026, the following was stated:
"Not only is the bill not expected to lead to an increase in the ranks of the army in the immediate term, but on the contrary - it provides an incentive for non-reporting for military service, since it will be accompanied by an exemption from prosecution and criminal proceedings. Thus, the bill is inconsistent with the needs of the IDF, and this is clearly and unequivocally."