Satmar, Gur, and a million dollars: why the Haredim are ready to take the fight with Israel to the USA and The Hague

At a closed meeting between influential leader Gur Yaakov Aryeh Alter and American representative of Satmar Yoel Landau, discussions were held about funding legal defense for yeshiva students, appeals to the US Congress, and complaints to The Hague. Behind one piece of news lies a much older conflict: why one part of the Haredim has been fundamentally distancing itself from the State of Israel for decades, while another participates in its governments — and why these two models are now beginning to converge.

Satmar and Gur against the draft of Haredim: $1 million, ‘Agudat Israel’, US Congress, and The Hague

In Israel, the story of the Haredim draft has received an unexpected international continuation.

On August 7, the media reported on a meeting between Yoel Landau from the American Hasidic movement Satmar and the Gur Rebbe Yaakov Aryeh Alter — the head of the largest Hasidic community in Israel and one of the most influential leaders of ‘Agudat Israel’.

The meeting discussed funding the fight against the conscription law. According to media reports, the money is proposed to be directed not only to lawyers for yeshiva students detained for failing to appear for the draft but also to an international campaign: appeals to the US Congress and complaints against Israel in The Hague. Yoel Landau and his partners are ready to allocate 1 million dollars for the project.

Channel 13, which first published the recording of the closed meeting, reports plans to create a special structure with external funding. At the meeting, representatives of the Haredi side spoke about discrimination, selective application of the law, police actions during protests against the draft, and even compared what is happening in Israel to North Korea.

But a million dollars is only the visible part of this story.

To understand why a representative of the radically anti-Zionist Satmar ended up at the same table with the leader of Gur, who has influenced Israeli governments through ‘Agudat Israel’ for decades, one needs to go back more than a hundred years.

Who are the Satmar

Satmar is one of the largest Hasidic movements in the world.

The name comes from the city of Satu Mare, now located in Romania. Modern Satmar formed around Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, and after the Holocaust, its main center became the USA — primarily New York.

The YIVO Encyclopedia defines Satmar as an ultra-conservative anti-Zionist Hasidic movement. Under Joel Teitelbaum, opposition to Zionism became one of the central parts of his religious ideology.

And here it is important to understand: it is not just about dislike for a specific Israeli government, prime minister, or Supreme Court decisions.

The classic Satmar position is significantly deeper.

For Satmar, the problem begins with Zionism itself

At the core of Joel Teitelbaum’s approach is the religious idea that the Jewish people should not independently restore political sovereignty until the coming of the Messiah.

One of the foundations of this approach was the interpretation of a Talmudic fragment about the so-called ‘three oaths’.

In the Satmar tradition, this leads to the conclusion: the return of Jews to the Land of Israel as a religious and personal action is permissible and important, but the creation of a national state by political, diplomatic, and military means is a completely different matter.

Therefore, for Satmar, it is possible to simultaneously:

• love the Land of Israel;
• consider Jerusalem a holy city;
• live in Jerusalem;
• help the Jews of Israel;
• and at the same time not recognize the Zionist State of Israel as a religious value.

This is the fundamental difference between Satmar’s anti-Zionism and ordinary political opposition.

Why money is so important for Satmar

From this ideology follows a practical principle: religious institutions should be as independent as possible from the Zionist state.

The logic is simple.

If the state funds a school, yeshiva, or kollel, the state gains the ability to set conditions.

It can require the teaching of certain subjects.

It can control funding criteria.

It can link the budget to compliance with legislation.

And in today’s Israel, it can link the funding of religious institutions to the status of students not fulfilling military obligations.

Satmar has been building an alternative system of massive private charity for decades.

And this is where Yoel Landau appears.

Who is Yoel Landau

Landau is an American businessman from the Satmar environment and a major donor to ultra-Orthodox institutions.

Calcalist in 2025 wrote that he made his fortune primarily in the business related to nursing homes in New York, and estimated his fortune at about half a billion dollars.

His relationship with Gur did not start yesterday.

In 2025, when Gur’s institutions faced the loss of state funding amid the draft crisis, Yaakov Aryeh Alter went to the USA to raise donations.

Landau provided a private plane for the trip.

But along with transportation, he offered Gur something much more serious.

‘Stop depending on the state’

In June 2025, the Haredi publication B’hadrei Haredim published the content of a letter from Landau to Alter.

The essence of the proposal was practically revolutionary for Gur: to transfer its system of institutions to the Satmar model and stop depending on the budgets of the ‘Zionist government’.

That is, Landau proposed not just to close another budget gap.

He proposed changing the relationship of an entire Hasidic community with the State of Israel.

A year later, we see the next step.

Now private money is proposed to be used not only instead of the state budget but also to resist the actions of the state — lawyers, legal defense, and an international campaign.

This is why the current meeting is so important.

And who are the Gur

Gur is another Hasidic tradition and a completely different political model.

The dynasty originated in the Polish town of Góra Kalwaria. Before the Holocaust, Gur was the largest Hasidic movement in central Poland and had a huge influence on the religious life of Polish Jewry.

After the destruction of European communities, the center of the movement was restored in Israel.

Today, Gur is considered the largest or one of the largest Hasidic communities in the country. Its current head is Yaakov Aryeh Alter.

But the main difference between Gur and Satmar is not in the size of the community.

They gave two completely different answers to the emergence of the State of Israel.

Satmar said: stay away

The classic position of Satmar:

• Zionism is religiously erroneous;
• therefore, there is no need to participate in the political system it created;
• it is advisable not to depend on it financially;
• Jewish religious life should exist independently of the state.

Gur chose participation

Gur is also historically not a Zionist movement in the usual Israeli sense.

But its strategy is completely different.

The state exists.

Millions of Jews live within it.

Therefore, the Haredim should have the opportunity to influence its decisions, protect their schools, yeshivas, family structure, and religious norms through political institutions.

And here ‘Agudat Israel’ appears.

What is ‘Agudat Israel’

‘Agudat Israel’ appeared back in 1912, decades before the creation of the State of Israel.

The Israel Democracy Institute notes that the movement was created as a political tool to preserve the ultra-Orthodox way of life in the face of modernization and Zionism.

One of the most important participants in the formation of the movement was precisely Gur. YIVO writes that the Gur Rebbe Avraham Mordechai Alter was a prominent figure in the creation of Agudas Yisroel, and representatives of the movement, close to Gur leaders, later worked first in the Polish parliament and then in the Israeli Knesset.

After the creation of Israel, ‘Agudat Israel’ made a historic compromise.

It did not become a Zionist party, but it entered the political system of Israel.

Representatives of the movement participated in the forming state bodies, and a party representative worked as a minister in the first Israeli governments until 1952.

Today, the political scheme looks something like this:

Gur and other Hasidic courts form the basis of ‘Agudat Israel’.

‘Agudat Israel’ represents the Hasidic part of the Ashkenazi Haredi world.

The Lithuanian Haredim are represented by ‘Degel HaTorah’.

Together they form the political bloc ‘Yahadut HaTorah’.

It is through this system that the Haredim get Knesset members, seats on committees, influence on coalition agreements, and state budgets.

A strange paradox arises

From the point of view of a secular Israeli, the structure can indeed seem difficult to explain.

The political representatives of the Haredim:

1. participate in elections;
2. sit in the Knesset;
3. enter coalitions;
4. receive state budgets;
5. achieve funding for their own institutions;
6. influence governments.

But at the same time, part of their religious leadership considers the decisions of state institutions as secondary to the decisions of rabbis.

Why?

Because in the traditional Haredi worldview, the state is not the highest source of authority.

Such a source is the Torah and Halacha.

And when state law and rabbinical leadership decisions begin to directly contradict each other, conflict becomes inevitable.

The draft is precisely such a conflict

For most Israelis, the question today sounds very simple.

Israel has been living for years under conditions of war and extraordinary pressure on the army.

Reservists spend tens and hundreds of days in service.

Families are left without parents.

Businesses lose workers.

Military personnel die and get injured.

The IDF objectively needs people.

On May 20, 2026, the head of the IDF’s Planning and Personnel Management Department, Brigadier General Shay Tayeb, stated in the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that the army lacks about 12 thousand servicemen, including approximately 6–7.5 thousand fighters.

Against this backdrop, maintaining large-scale exemptions for young Haredi men is becoming increasingly unacceptable to a significant part of society.

But the Haredi leadership views the problem differently.

Why the army is perceived as a threat

It’s not just about the reluctance to wear a uniform or follow orders.

For the closed Haredi community, the IDF is one of the most powerful mechanisms for integrating a person into the general Israeli society.

A young man leaves the yeshiva.

He enters a completely different social system.

He interacts with secular Israelis.

He encounters technology and the internet.

He sees other family models.

He works alongside people who live completely differently.

After service, it is easier for him to enter the labor market and receive professional education.

For the state, this can be an advantage.

For a very closed religious community, it’s a risk.

Therefore, the issue of conscription turns into a struggle not only for the status of individual yeshiva students.

It’s a struggle for how autonomous the Haredi community can remain within Israel.

NANews — Israel News explained in detail the structure of Haredi yeshivas and the content of education in them in a separate article from July 15, 2026. It’s important to see one detail there: for the religious world, years of studying the Talmud and Halacha is perceived not as a way to avoid ‘normal life,’ but as a central duty and the very model of life for a yeshiva student.

This does not negate the debate about equality of duties to the state. But without understanding this motivation, it is impossible to understand why the conflict turned out to be so severe.

In July, the state already tried to stop the arrests

On July 14, 2026, the Knesset finally approved a temporary provision to suspend the arrests of yeshiva students who meet the established criteria.

58 deputies voted for, 54 against.

The law applied to students who actually spend the established number of hours per week in the yeshiva and was supposed to be in effect until November 30, 2026.

During the same period, the Knesset adopted the Basic Law on the Value of Torah Study: 63 deputies supported, 52 opposed.

That is, the dispute has already gone far beyond the framework of a few arrested students.

Israel is essentially trying to legally define how to simultaneously combine:

• the value of Torah study;
• the duty to defend the state;
• equality of citizens;
• the needs of the IDF;
• the autonomy of the Haredi community.

And it is at this moment that American Satmar capital enters the conversation.

What Landau proposes

According to Israeli media, Channel 13 and Ynet, the proposal consists of several levels.

First — to finance lawyers for every yeshiva student who faces detention or other legal consequences.

Second — to create a special fund.

Third — to document cases that the Haredi side considers discrimination or excessive use of force.

Fourth — to appeal to US political structures, including Congress.

And finally — to move part of the struggle to the international legal arena, including appeals to The Hague.

The publications do not specify which international judicial body in The Hague should be the target of such a campaign and what legal procedure will be used.

But for understanding the political significance of the meeting, this is not even the main thing.

The main thing is the very transition from internal coalition struggle to external pressure.

Why this meeting is unusual even for the Haredi

Because Satmar and Gur have historically been almost at opposite ends of Haredi politics.

Satmar has said for decades:

do not associate religious life with the Zionist state.

Gur responded with its practice:

we may not be Zionists, but we will participate in the state and use its political system.

And suddenly, the Satmar financial model is in demand at a time when Gur’s relations with the state are in crisis.

First, Landau proposed:

we don’t need state money — we’ll raise our own.

Now the next stage:

if the state applies the law against your students — we’ll pay for lawyers and take the fight abroad.

This is no longer an ordinary donation.

This is the creation of an alternative source of political stability.

Money changes the balance

The state has the ability to influence religious institutions primarily because it allocates budgets.

This is how any modern state works.

Want state funding — meet the established requirements.

But what happens if large foreign donors can completely replace this money?

Then the pressure through the budget sharply weakens.

That is why the Satmar model is potentially much more important than a specific million dollars.

Today we are talking about $1 million for a legal campaign.

But behind Satmar in the US is a huge independent network of schools, religious institutions, businesses, and charities.

If such a model spreads to large Israeli Hasidic communities, the State of Israel will have to deal with social structures that live within the country, participate in its politics, but financially depend less and less on it.

Why this is especially important now

NANews — Israel News already wrote in the summer of 2026 that the issue of conscription has become one of the central conflicts surrounding the future of Israeli society.

On July 14, we thoroughly analyzed the confrontation around the temporary ‘immunity’ for Haredim not appearing for service and the position of the IDF.

And even earlier in the ‘Understand Israel’ project, we examined a broader question: Israel consists not just of ‘religious’ and ‘secular.’ Haredim, religious Zionists, traditional and secular citizens respond differently to fundamental questions about the nature of the state, the army, religious law, and civic responsibility.

And the current meeting shows this conflict almost in its pure form.

Do they really ‘have a bad attitude towards Israel’?

For Satmar, such a question has one answer, and for Gur, another.

Satmar is indeed ideologically anti-Zionist.

For its classical religious teaching, the problem is embedded in political Zionism itself and the independent creation of a state before the messianic redemption.

Gur is not Satmar.

Gur is not a Zionist movement, but for decades it has been a participant in the Israeli political system.

Therefore, it is more accurate to speak not of Gur’s hatred of Israel, but of a completely different hierarchy of values.

For most citizens, the state establishes the law, and the citizen is obliged to comply with it.

For the Haredi religious leadership, religious duty is above state law.

As long as these two systems can negotiate, there is a political compromise.

When they fail to agree, what Israel observes today begins.

What is the main risk for the state

The most serious question is not even whether any complaints in The Hague can lead to a practical result.

Much more important is another process.

If Gur and other large Haredi structures gain the ability to:

• not depend on state budgets;
• finance their institutions from the US;
• pay for their own legal protection;
• create external political connections;
• and transfer internal Israeli disputes to the international level,

then the very structure of relations between the Haredim and the state changes.

Previously, it was largely a trade within Israel:

• votes in the Knesset;
• coalition support;
• budgets;
• exceptions;
• ministerial and parliamentary positions.

Now another level appears — a private transnational system of influence, which Israel controls much less.

Why is it beneficial for Satmar

Because for Satmar, it is a confirmation of its own historical model.

For decades, its leaders told other Haredim:

do not make the existence of the Torah world dependent on the money of the Zionist state.

Gur chose a different path and became one of the most influential political forces within Israel.

But the draft crisis showed the weak spot of this model.

The state can say:

you receive money from us — therefore, you must comply with our conditions.

And Landau essentially proposes to remove this dependency.

Not to convince Gur to become Satmar tomorrow.

Not to force it to immediately leave the Knesset.

But to give it the opportunity to say to the state:

your money is no longer as necessary to us as before.

Politically, this may prove to be much more important than loud words about The Hague.

The main question is just beginning

The story of Landau and Alter is not just a strange episode about a millionaire from New York who decided to pay for lawyers for Israeli yeshiva students.

We are facing a clash of two models of Jewish life.

The first says: The State of Israel is the central common institution of the Jewish people, and its citizens must jointly bear responsibilities, including the defense of the country.

The second responds: The Torah and the religious community existed long before the modern state, and the state has no right to destroy this way of life even under the pretext of equal responsibilities.

For decades, Gur tried to live between these two worlds — not becoming a Zionist movement, but participating in the Zionist state.

For decades, Satmar proved that such a compromise would sooner or later lead to dependency.

Now a Satmar donor comes to the leader of Gur precisely when this dependency has become painful and offers money.

First — instead of the state budget.

Now — to fight state decisions.

And therefore, the main question of the meeting is not what exactly the first million dollars will be spent on.

The main question is — is the largest Israeli Hasidic movement gradually beginning to adopt the Satmar model of independence from the State of Israel while remaining within its political system?

There is no answer yet.

But this is exactly what should be watched further.

Source of information: the material was prepared by Elena Gunko for NANews based on a publication by Israelinfo on August 7, 2026, an exclusive material from Channel 13, a publication by Ynet, materials from the Israel Democracy Institute, YIVO Encyclopedia, official Knesset reports, and Haredi sources about previous contacts between Yoel Landau and Gur. NANews independently added the historical context of the relations between Satmar, Gur, and ‘Agudat Yisrael’, the connection of the current meeting with the crisis of yeshiva funding, and previously published editorial materials on the Haredi draft.

Proof boundary: public sources report on agreements and discussions about creating a legal structure, funding the defense of yeshiva students, appeals to the US Congress and The Hague. At the time of publication, NANews does not have documents on the registration of such a fund, the transfer of the promised million dollars, or an already filed international complaint. If such documents appear, this part of the material should be updated.