By: Tzirel Rosenblatt

A recent segment on i24 News has reignited one of the most consequential debates within the Israeli charedi world: should ultra-Orthodox Jewry continue its delicate cooperation with the State of Israel in exchange for yeshiva funding, or should it follow the uncompromising path of Satmar, renouncing state support entirely in order to preserve its independence?

As VIN News reported on Thursday, the debate over the draft law has reached a boiling point. With tens of thousands of draft notices issued to full-time yeshiva students, the traditional arrangement that allowed charedi men to remain in study while exempt from military service appears increasingly fragile. For charedi leadership, the question has grown existential: how can they protect Torah learning, maintain their way of life, and still contend with mounting state pressure for reciprocity?

The charedi community’s relationship with the state has long been defined by an approach attributed to the Chazon Ish, who counseled pragmatic cooperation after the founding of Israel in 1948. Recognizing the permanence of the Jewish state, the Chazon Ish and other leading rabbis sought to establish a modus vivendi—an understanding that would safeguard the independence of yeshivos while securing financial support from the state.

This approach, as highlighted by VIN News, enabled Torah institutions to flourish for three-quarters of a century. Thousands of young men were able to devote their lives to Torah study without conscription, while yeshivos received consistent government subsidies. For many, it was the compromise that ensured the continuity of Jewish religious life in the modern state.

Yet the state’s position has shifted. Israeli leaders argue that funding Torah institutions without reciprocal participation in national service—particularly the army—represents an unsustainable imbalance. The proposed new draft law seeks to dramatically raise enlistment targets for charedim, making the continuation of the old arrangement nearly impossible.

For yeshiva students, the implications are stark. As the report at VIN News described, thousands of young men are now living under the shadow of arrest by military police should they fail to comply with conscription orders. The community is experiencing an unprecedented climate of fear, with the draft law serving as a wedge issue between the government and charedi leadership.

This shift has forced many within the ultra-Orthodox world to reassess their strategy. Is cooperation with the state still viable if it comes at the expense of mass arrests, threats to Torah study, and state interference in the autonomy of their institutions?

Enter the Satmar approach, pioneered by Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum zts’l. From its inception, the Satmar ideology rejected the legitimacy of the Zionist state and refused all forms of cooperation. Its yeshivos do not accept a single shekel from the government, instead relying entirely on community fundraising and philanthropy.

This ideological clarity has, paradoxically, ensured institutional stability. By severing ties with the state, Satmar yeshivos are immune from government strings attached to funding. They operate with total independence, shaping curricula and maintaining their community life without compromise.

In recent years, the Jerusalem Faction, a Lithuanian group of staunchly anti-establishment rabbanim and yeshivos, has joined Satmar in this ideological posture. As VIN News has covered extensively, the Jerusalem Faction has embraced militant opposition to government interference, rallying in the streets against draft laws and refusing to engage in political compromise.

The Satmar position gained fresh visibility when mega-donor Yoeli Landau visited Israel, ostensibly to mark the yahrzeit of the rebbe but with an additional mission: to persuade more factions within the charedi community to adopt the Satmar method.

According to the information provided in the VIN News report, Landau met with rabbinic leaders to emphasize that Satmar’s vast network of philanthropists is prepared to provide robust financial support should other factions sever ties with the state. Landau’s message was clear: if the Israeli government insists on conscription in exchange for funding, charedim should reject the funding altogether and rely on alternative sources to safeguard Torah learning.

Landau’s assurances reflect Satmar’s confidence in its diaspora-backed financial power. With a well-organized philanthropic network across the United States and beyond, Satmar has demonstrated the capacity to maintain and even expand its institutions without a single dollar of state aid.

Despite Satmar’s aggressive push, many charedi politicians and rabbinic leaders remain cautious. Members of Knesset representing ultra-Orthodox parties have emphasized that the time has not yet come to abandon state funding. While acknowledging that circumstances are becoming untenable, they stress the importance of leveraging political power within the Knesset to preserve the traditional arrangement.

At the same time, leading Lithuanian gedolim have not ruled out the possibility of a strategic shift. As the VIN News report noted, they privately admit that if rejecting state funds would, in practice, protect Torah study, they would be prepared to endorse such a dramatic move.

This delicate balancing act reflects the internal tensions within the charedi world. On one side is the Chazon Ish model of pragmatic cooperation, which has ensured growth for decades. On the other side is the Satmar model of principled independence, increasingly attractive amid state crackdowns on draft evasion.

The i24 News report, amplified in the report at VIN News, illustrates how urgent this dilemma has become. For decades, the question of whether to rely on state funds was largely theoretical. Today, with arrests looming and enlistment targets rising, the question is practical, immediate, and unavoidable.

Some argue that cooperation remains the only realistic path, pointing to the immense financial burden of running thousands of yeshivos without government support. Others counter that Satmar has demonstrated the feasibility of independence, and that reliance on the state leaves Torah institutions vulnerable to political bargaining.

The division is not merely strategic but ideological. For those inspired by Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum’s vision, cooperation with the state is a spiritual compromise that endangers the authenticity of Torah life. For others, rejecting state support risks undermining the very existence of large-scale Torah study, which has been sustained in Israel for decades only through subsidies.

Central to this debate is the question of whether alternative funding streams can replace government aid. Landau and other Satmar philanthropists argue that they can, pointing to the billions of dollars in global Jewish philanthropy directed toward yeshivos and kollelim each year.

Yet as the VIN News report observed, the scale of Israel’s charedi yeshiva world dwarfs that of any other community. Replicating state support through philanthropy alone would require unprecedented levels of organization and commitment from donors abroad. While possible, it would represent a fundamental reorientation of how Torah institutions are financed.

The dilemma facing the charedi world today is unprecedented in scope. With the draft law threatening mass arrests, the traditional model of cooperation with the state is under strain as never before. At the same time, the Satmar method offers a tested but daunting alternative: total independence at the cost of financial security.

The choice is no longer theoretical but pressing. Charedi leaders must soon decide whether to cling to the arrangement that has sustained them for 75 years or to embrace the radical independence of Satmar, with all the risks and promises that entails.

For now, the community remains at a crossroads, weighing pragmatism against principle, survival against sovereignty. Whatever path is chosen will reshape not only the future of Israel’s charedi world but also the very relationship between Torah Judaism and the modern Jewish state.