A Covenant for Israel’s Future

Religious Freedom, Shared Responsibility, and the Work of Living Together

When I met with an ultra-Orthodox rabbi during my travels in Israel, I approached the encounter as a Christian interested in understanding how another religious community preserved its faith within a rapidly changing society. The questions that drew me to that conversation were familiar from my own religious tradition. How does a community remain faithful when the surrounding culture moves in different directions? Which boundaries protect spiritual life, and which eventually become obstacles to obligations that faith itself requires?

What I did not fully appreciate at the beginning was how profoundly the existence of a sovereign Jewish state changes the character of those questions.

Haredi communities are not simply preserving their traditions alongside an unfamiliar society. They participate in a state established as the national home of the Jewish people, exercising political rights and benefiting from institutions whose continued existence depends upon the contributions of citizens with sharply different convictions.

That condition creates obligations extending beyond the preservation of religious identity.

Yet Israel’s secular and non-Haredi communities also face a challenge. A Jewish and democratic state cannot fulfill its commitments to religious liberty by treating Torah-centered life as an obstacle to modernization or by assuming that genuine participation requires conformity to secular culture.

The future depends upon whether religious freedom and shared responsibility can be joined within institutions that protect difference while distributing obligations fairly.

The language of covenant offers a moral starting point for that work, but it must now be translated into public arrangements capable of surviving political disagreement.

The Difference Between Religious Liberty and Exemption

A democratic society protects religious liberty because citizens should not be compelled to accept a single understanding of ultimate truth, spiritual obligation, or the purpose of life.

Such liberty protects religious worship, communal institutions, education, and practices that may appear unfamiliar or inconvenient to the majority.

In Israel, those protections are particularly important because Jewish identity encompasses religious, national, historical, and cultural dimensions that do not produce a single understanding of Judaism.

Haredi communities should not be required to surrender Sabbath observance, religious dress, dietary practices, intensive Torah study, or their distinctive communal life as the price of citizenship.

But religious liberty does not automatically establish a right to exemption from every public requirement.

The state must protect freedom of conscience while also establishing obligations necessary for defense, education, public welfare, and the rights of other citizens.

These responsibilities sometimes conflict. The relevant question is how those conflicts should be resolved through law, accommodation, negotiation, and institutional accountability.

A workable settlement must distinguish essential religious protections from political arrangements that can be reconsidered without destroying the religious practices they were intended to safeguard.

National Service and the Burdens of Citizenship

Military service will remain among the most difficult questions.

Israel faces genuine defense requirements, and its public institutions cannot disregard the unequal distribution of military obligations among similarly situated citizens.

At the same time, incorporating larger numbers of Haredi men into military service presents practical and religious challenges. These include training, religious observance, organizational capacity, and the relationship between military authority and established communal expectations.

The solution cannot rest upon declaring that all contributions are equivalent. Nor can it assume that identical institutional arrangements are necessary for every person.

A defensible approach would begin with the state’s actual security requirements and the legal obligations established for those subject to service.

Within those limits, policymakers could develop religious accommodations that protect observance while preserving the operational requirements and legitimate authority of the military. Civilian service may have an appropriate role in certain circumstances, but its equivalence to military obligations must be evaluated rather than presumed.

Exemptions should possess clear legal foundations and publicly defensible criteria. Their administration should be transparent, and the effects of proposed arrangements should be assessed against measurable public needs.

This would not remove the theological objection of leaders who regard compulsory military service as incompatible with yeshiva life. But it would place the controversy within a structure of law and responsibility rather than indefinite negotiation among coalition partners.

The state must also explain its decisions in terms citizens can evaluate without adopting a particular religious worldview.

Education That Preserves Identity and Expands Opportunity

A similar principle applies to education.

Religious education should be permitted to pursue religious purposes. A school devoted to Torah study cannot be assessed solely by whether it reproduces the curriculum or cultural assumptions of a secular institution.

Nevertheless, government has a responsibility to protect children’s access to the knowledge and competencies necessary for meaningful adult choices.

The difficulty lies in designing standards that preserve the integrity of religious education while providing sufficient preparation for employment, citizenship, and participation in contemporary institutions.

This should involve serious consultation with Haredi educators, parents, scholars, and representatives of different communities, including women whose educational and professional experiences are often overlooked.

The objective would not be to produce culturally uniform schools. It would be to guarantee reasonable educational opportunities while allowing communities to transmit their traditions.

Public funding should be linked to clear, lawful, and proportionate obligations, with accountability mechanisms that recognize different legitimate educational approaches.

Educational reform cannot be successful if it treats religious identity as a defect. Neither can religious identity justify leaving children without essential opportunities.

Economic Security and the Value of Work

The growing demographic significance of Haredi society makes economic participation a concern for the entire country.

Israel’s future fiscal capacity, workforce, housing needs, and public institutions will be influenced by the educational and employment choices of communities whose population is increasing rapidly.

This creates a strong public interest in expanding access to training and employment.

But an economic policy that defines success exclusively through assimilation will encounter predictable resistance and may neglect opportunities for a different approach.

Religiously compatible employment and professional training can allow Haredi families to strengthen their economic security while preserving patterns of observance they regard as essential.

The substantial employment of Haredi women demonstrates that participation in contemporary economic institutions does not necessarily eliminate religious identity.

The state and employers should therefore focus on barriers that can be reduced without demanding unnecessary cultural change.

At the same time, public discussion should acknowledge that Torah scholarship, charitable activity, caregiving, and communal assistance possess forms of value not captured entirely by conventional economic measures.

Recognizing those contributions does not remove the need for an adequate tax base or responsible public expenditure. It broadens the discussion of social value without abandoning fiscal reality.

Protecting Individuals as Well as Communities

An important test of any settlement concerns whose freedom is being protected.

It is possible to defend communal autonomy while neglecting individuals whose choices differ from the preferences of religious authorities.

It is equally possible to invoke individual freedom in ways that dismiss the genuine aspirations of people who voluntarily choose disciplined religious lives.

A just arrangement must avoid both errors.

Women should not be treated as passive participants in decisions concerning educational opportunity, employment, and religious life. Young people should possess meaningful opportunities to develop the skills required for adulthood, whether they remain within their communities or pursue different paths.

Religious institutions should retain legitimate control over their spiritual practices while remaining subject to laws protecting basic rights.

These requirements are not uniquely applicable to Haredi Judaism. They concern every religious, cultural, and political institution entrusted with influence over the lives of its members.

The freedom to preserve a tradition and the freedom to make meaningful individual choices are both important. Neither can be reduced entirely to the other.

Public Institutions That Can Sustain Disagreement

Israel’s longstanding disagreements concerning religion and state cannot be resolved through appeals to goodwill alone.

A durable settlement requires institutions capable of making decisions, enforcing obligations, reviewing grievances, and revising arrangements when circumstances change.

That work should include structured engagement among state authorities, Haredi religious and civic representatives, non-Haredi Jewish communities, and other citizens whose rights or public obligations are affected.

Such engagement must not be confused with the creation of a body empowered to negotiate away fundamental legal protections.

Courts, elected institutions, administrative agencies, and the ordinary procedures of democratic government retain their responsibilities. Religious participation can improve the legitimacy and practicality of decisions without replacing the rule of law.

Likewise, civil society can create relationships that government institutions cannot manufacture. Religious educators, employers, community organizations, and professional associations can develop pathways for cooperation even where political disagreement remains intense.

The purpose is not to eliminate conflict. It is to create ways of managing conflict that do not depend upon each successive political crisis.

A Covenant That Includes Everyone

The language of covenant must be used carefully in a country whose citizens do not all belong to the Jewish people or share Jewish religious commitments.

Jewish covenant has a particular theological meaning. It cannot simply be transferred to all Israeli citizens as though they participate in the same religious relationship.

Yet the ethical insight that enduring relationships impose obligations can contribute to a broader understanding of civic responsibility.

Israel’s Arab citizens, including Muslims, Christians, and Druze, are entitled to equal protection and political rights irrespective of whether they understand their obligations in covenantal terms. Secular Jewish citizens are likewise entitled to freedom from religious coercion.

A covenantal approach to public life can be constructive only if it reinforces those principles rather than weakening them.

In that sense, the measure of religiously informed political responsibility is not merely how generously a community treats those who share its beliefs, but how seriously it protects the legitimate claims of those who do not.

The Future of Religious Difference

There is no reason to expect Haredi Judaism to disappear into a more culturally uniform Israeli society. Its religious institutions, commitment to learning, family structures, and communal networks remain powerful sources of identity and continuity.

Nor should the preservation of those institutions be viewed as inherently incompatible with democracy.

The difficulty arises when institutional arrangements designed to preserve religious life impose obligations on others that cannot be publicly justified, or when the state seeks to correct those arrangements through measures that unnecessarily undermine religious freedom.

These problems will not be solved by declaring either religious autonomy or civic equality the only value that matters.

They require sustained judgments about the proper relationship between competing obligations.

Some accommodations will be possible. Other demands will remain incompatible with legal equality or the protection of individual rights. The legitimacy of a settlement will depend partly upon whether it establishes transparent reasons for those distinctions and institutions capable of enforcing them fairly.

The Work of Remaining Bound Together

The rabbi I met in Israel belonged to a religious world different from my own. I did not need to share all of its beliefs to recognize the seriousness of its commitment to preserving a way of life ordered around faith.

But religious understanding becomes incomplete when it stops with admiration for a community’s devotion. The claims of those who live beyond its boundaries must also be considered.

For Haredi communities, that includes the rights, sacrifices, and security needs of fellow citizens. For secular and other non-Haredi Israelis, it includes the religious freedom of people whose understanding of a meaningful life differs from their own.

For the state, it includes the obligation to preserve a common political framework that protects all its citizens.

Covenant does not require agreement about every moral or theological question. It does require that disagreement cease being an excuse for indifference to the consequences of our actions.

The future of Israel’s relationship with its ultra-Orthodox communities will not be secured through cultural victory by either side. It will depend upon the more demanding work of preserving religious integrity while establishing a credible and equitable framework of shared responsibility.

That work cannot be completed by one election, court ruling, rabbinic declaration, or legislative compromise.

It will require changes in law and institutions, but also changes in how communities understand the obligations that follow from living together.

Religious freedom without responsibility can become privilege. Responsibility without respect for religious freedom can become domination. A society committed to both must develop the judgment to recognize the difference.

The question is not whether Israelis can become alike. It is whether they can build a common future while remaining meaningfully different.

That is the unfinished work of covenant.

Notes and References

1. State of Israel, Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, May 14, 1948.
2. Israel Democracy Institute, Development of the Haredi Exemption Law, 2024.
3. Library of Congress, “Israel: High Court Imposes Sanctions on Individual Haredi Men Avoiding Draft,”, July 2026.
4. Israel Democracy Institute, Annual Statistical Report on Ultra-Orthodox Society in Israel 2025, 2026.
5. Yehoshua Pfeffer, “Haredi Faith: Theology and the Draft Controversy,”, SAPIR, August 12, 2024.
6. Jonathan Sacks, The Dignity of Difference (Continuum, 2002), on religious particularity and difference.
7. Leviticus 19; Isaiah 58; Babylonian Talmud, Shevuot 39a; Mishnah, Pirkei Avot 5:17.