Likud MK Saada Rejects Goldknopf’s Draft Demands, Predicts Broad Netanyahu Government
Likud MK Moshe Saada declared Thursday that the draft legislation being demanded by United Torah Judaism chairman Yitzchok Goldknopf would not become law in its current form, while insisting that the chareidi parties remain natural partners of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and predicting that a broad coalition would ultimately emerge under his leadership.
Speaking with Avi Mimran on Kol Chai Radio’s central news program, Saada addressed the political uncertainty following Israel’s elections, the growing controversy surrounding efforts to recruit chareidi parties into an alternative government, and recent developments in Netanyahu’s ongoing criminal trial.
Saada strongly criticized opposition leaders Naftali Bennett and Avigdor Lieberman, accusing them of reversing years of hostility toward the chareidi community in an effort to secure political support for a government that would replace Netanyahu.
“Opposition leaders such as Naftali Bennett and Avigdor Lieberman have engaged in fierce incitement against the Torah world for years,” Saada said. “Now, suddenly, they are displaying hypocrisy and trying to sell illusions. In reality, they have neither the intention nor the ability to pass a draft law that would survive the High Court of Justice.”
His remarks came amid reports that figures in the emerging anti-Netanyahu bloc were exploring arrangements with United Torah Judaism that could include an agreement on military conscription and protections for yeshiva students.
Saada maintained that the opposition’s sudden willingness to discuss concessions on the draft issue should not be taken seriously, arguing that the same politicians who previously demanded tougher enlistment requirements would be unable to deliver the legislation sought by the chareidi parties.
At the same time, he acknowledged that the version of the draft law being advanced by Goldknopf would not be enacted, indicating that any eventual agreement would require a different legislative approach.
Despite the disagreements surrounding the draft, Saada emphasized that the chareidi community belongs within the broader religious and traditional political alliance that has supported Netanyahu.
“The chareidim are our brothers, and the Jewish faith-based bloc won the elections,” he said. “Netanyahu took a risk and advanced a Basic Law on Torah Study out of a moral and principled obligation, despite the attacks. All the attempts to portray Torah learners negatively come from hypocritical fringe elements. Most of the public appreciates Torah learners and the Jewish identity of the state.”
Saada also dismissed reports suggesting that chareidi parties might cooperate with Arab factions or help establish a government supported by the political left.
He described such suggestions as “nonsense and political spin,” insisting that fundamental ideological differences made those arrangements unrealistic.
“We have no place alongside parties such as Ra’am and the Joint List that call for the release of terrorists,” Saada declared. “This discussion is a chillul Hashem and has no practical possibility of materializing.”
Turning to Netanyahu’s criminal trial, Saada claimed that recent courtroom proceedings, including testimony involving former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, had exposed serious irregularities in the investigations against the prime minister.
Saada, a former senior official in the Justice Ministry’s Police Internal Investigations Department, argued that the judges were increasingly aware of the potential consequences of allowing the proceedings to continue.
“This is an unprecedented event in which the judges understand that continuing the case will lead to its collapse and enormous embarrassment,” Saada said. “The judges are not trying to protect Netanyahu, but rather the system itself, so that they will not be forced to write a verdict that would require opening a criminal investigation against Mandelblit and Shai Nitzan.”
He went further, alleging that the investigations involved serious misconduct, including unauthorized surveillance and improper investigative practices.
