“So what? He is still a Shomer Torah U’mitzvos (qualification #1) AND not a Zionist/Dati Leumi (Qualification #2) AND self-identifies as a Chareidi (Qualification #3). Unless you are adding additional qualifications?”
I guess I’m adding additional qualifications :). Or maybe I am just redefining “not being dati-leumi” as being someone who is not “dati-leumi” for the same type of reasons that Chareidim are not dati-leumi.
Or: Possibility #2: One could argue that someone who votes Meretz is by definition not “shomer Torah u’Mitzvos”.
Or: Possibility #3: As I pointed out earlier, no definition will fit 100% and you will always find some people who don’t fit (as you probably would with any label). People aren’t labels, and there are people who don’t fit in boxes no matter how wide the box is. Since Shomer Torah U’Mitzvos people who vote Meretz are a rarity, I don’t think they are enough of a reason to be mevatel my definition even if they don’t fit. So you can either say that they are the exception that proves the rule or you can add to the definition to make if fit them.
Possibility #4: I’m not incredibly up-to-date on Israeli politics, but last I checked, Meretz was anti-Chareidi. So that would be the reason that someone who votes Meretz can’t be considered Chareidi. And we don’t really need the first 3 possibilities anymore, but I only thought of this after I wrote it.