Regarding refusal of service in the army or the police, what is the connection between the government’s conduct and refusal? If it were about a specific action, like the evacuation during the disengagement, I could understand, but here the connection between the actions of the army and police and the government’s conduct seems pretty weak.

There doesn’t necessarily have to be a connection. True, there is room for distrust in their decisions. But a person can say that he is not willing to take orders from such a corrupt gang. In addition, refusal is a tool for getting rid of them.

You can’t turn the law into a sham and then demand that citizens obey the law.

I seem to remember that in the first wave of demonstrations against the reform you didn’t support refusal. Has something changed since then?

I don’t remember anymore, but I think that even then I supported it (I only raised a second thought following Arel Segal’s conversation with that mechanic, who apparently wasn’t really authentic).
In any case, until about two months ago I thought there was a chance for an agreed compromise, and therefore I opposed steps whose goal was to bring down the government. I thought we should focus on formulating an agreed version of the reform and not drag in the principled disputes here (the Haredim, religion and state, etc.). But now, in my opinion, it is becoming clear that the most important thing is to bring down the government. The reform is a marginal issue. The state is in danger, not democracy.
See my responsum from a few days ago about the reasonableness standard.

It’s not terrible at all if the state is in danger. What matters is the Jewish people. And the left (or, more precisely, what it does not believe in) and its supporters (like Rabbi Michi) are a danger to the Jewish people. Spiritually, and therefore physically as well. And right now the biggest “conceptual” enemy of the Jewish people is the state that for some reason is called “Israel.” If the Jewish people here flourish and the state collapses, that would be excellent. The state is just a collection of institutions and officials empty of content. It’s the vessel, the means—to serve the Jewish people—not the goal. The Jewish people are the goal. But for the left, and apparently also for Rabbi Michi, it’s the other way around. Have you ever heard the left, or Sa’ar and people like him, talk about the Jewish people, or about Jews (in the true sense of Jews, meaning according to Jewish law)? They constantly talk about the state, and about citizens, correspondingly. Because from the perspective of the officials and the public sector, who are the left, who have no Jewish consciousness and no loyalty to the Jewish people (that would be racism), the existence of the Jewish people is meant to serve them. So they should have someone to rule over. They already wanted to do that in the Diaspora, but got kicked in the backside in the Dreyfus trial. So luckily there are still enough sucker Jews they can lord it over.

If the institutions that heal us are weakened—and they will be weakened if the coup goes through—
if the institutions that protect us, both against enemies and in terms of internal conduct, are weakened—and they will be very weakened if the coup goes through—
then the Jewish people will have a problem later on, probably be in danger,
and according to the ways of nature this will keep deteriorating until a tragic end.

That’s the threat, of course, but it’s clear that these institutions don’t care about the Jewish people and have no loyalty to them. It really is a hard question. We could withdraw into ourselves—the Religious Zionists and the Mizrahim—and have everyone who doesn’t aspire to fit into those institutions not serve in the army at all. That’s the choice the Haredim made in their time. A second option is to sacrifice everything those institutions provide for the sake of freedom. People do sacrifice their lives for freedom. Because right now, de facto, we are in exile (I heard people call it the exile of the mixed multitude). I actually support the first option. The first time we tried to achieve freedom in this way led us to a situation where a third of the Jewish people are incapable of saying the words “the Jewish people,” certainly not without having some immune reaction arise in them. Not to mention acting for that collective (that’s racism for them—the sin more severe than murder). So in elections, treat the government as if it were a foreign body. Let the left make all the decisions, and we will act as individuals, each one doing what he thinks, and that’s it. Like Jews in exile. Like the Haredim. Satmar and Chabad were actually right—but only on the practical level, not the normative one. In reality, Jews are forbidden—in the sense that it is impossible to establish a state—except with the coming of the Messiah.

Can you explain why you think this government is exceptionally corrupt? (Bibi’s cases are troubling, but in my opinion not all that severe, and the conduct of Ben-Gvir and the Haredi representatives is very troubling, but it looks like political conduct, as do political appointments.)

Legislation that has absolutely nothing to do with the good of the country. Personal legislation meant to place convicted corrupt figures in senior positions, and self-serving legislation including Basic Laws. Outrageous transfers of funds that mortgage the country for years to come. They are turning the law into a sham. This has awful consequences not only in terms of the content of the laws, but in terms of the attitude toward law in general. They are breaking every reasonable norm. A horrific government—there has never been a government even remotely like it.
I wrote that in a nutshell, and I absolutely do not intend to get into a pointless argument about it.

To Shara,
Beyond the bluff Rabbi Michi is trying to sell here about the purity of the anti-Jewish camp he belongs to, any government that could be formed today from the opposition would be a danger to the Jewish people. And therefore no better government than this one can currently be formed. Once that was possible, and there even was one (the Netanyahu-Bennett-Lapid government). But Bennett turned out to be a master fraud, and Lapid “turned out” to be both hollow and progressive at once (progressivism is already a danger to all of humanity). By the way, the law was always a sham. The left never respected laws it didn’t like (they didn’t enforce laws prohibiting work on the Sabbath, etc.). So in any case it was all a bluff. That’s why no one in the coalition has any problem with these laws (for some reason Rabbi Michi had no problem with the “defendant law,” somehow also personal). They know this truth very well. If the left went with the Haredim, it would give them everything, as long as it could take revenge on Bibi, whom they hate passionately (it’s not clear why they hate him so much—it’s because he goes with the Haredim). As I noted, the “state” is a collection of officials and buildings that exist, in their own eyes, for themselves. I also have no interest in caring for the good of the Arabs, who are a fifth column. One should care only about the Jewish people here in the Land of Israel and make sure they get good value for the taxes they pay. By the way, I’m convinced that, generally speaking, Meretz voters contribute very little to the economy. They mainly work in journalism, law, media and advertising, marketing, film, art, etc. (which presumably also isn’t particularly good art—modern art). Air professions, selling bluff and lies—selling appearances and fantasies. Anti-productive professions. And since they also secede from the Jewish people (they are progressives; they believe in the anti-racist god), it may be that they have the status of apostates (that is, not like a child captured among gentiles), for whom the obligation of “love your neighbor as yourself” does not apply. But that still needs discussion. So maybe, as far as I’m concerned, there is no need to worry about them either. Support for the Haredim should also be stopped gradually, not all at once.

Really, it’s a code word: when someone talks about the good of the “state” (the vessel, the empty instrument), I know he is indifferent to the Jewish people (the essence, the goal). And that’s in the best case. It seems to me that in practice they even act against it. It’s no accident that the left is incapable of uttering the phrase “the Jewish people” and constantly talks about the state, which from its perspective could just as well be France or Britain.

Anything done by the anti-current-government side could be done by the other side too.
It is highly irresponsible to call for this kind of refusal.
Nothing will happen if these laws pass; at most, a government will arise that repeals them.