Hell will break out
Whether the choice of Aharon Barak to represent Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the right choice is of secondary importance (“A wise choice,” editorial, January 9). The real question is whether Israel should appear at all in this court, where Israel is being accused of nothing less than “genocide” by a corrupt regime of South Africa.
Firstly, South Africa is no party to this war or conflict. So why is a standing given to such a party, completely disconnected from this brutal conflict. Secondly, everyone knows that Hamas committed the worst brutal atrocities against human civilians on October 7 when invading civilian communities near the Gaza Strip, atrocities which are difficult to describe.
Thus, the legal logic would command us to investigate and accuse Hamas of atrocities and genocide against humankind, and abducting civilians – including babies, women, and elderly people into gruesome prisons. I think that moral and legal aspects have been mixed up at the ICJ.
Worst of all, this court and its judges are known to be influenced by political considerations and views. If at the end of the day, the court will issue a verdict against Israel for genocide, it will inflame antisemitism in the whole world to unprecedented levels. Israel, and by extension all Jews, will be regarded as a genocidal tribe. Verbal and physical attacks on Jews will now have a legal justification, and hardly no one will protect these Jews.
No one knows the outcome of this judicial process at the ICJ, but if it turns out against Israel, hell will break out against Israel and Jews worldwide. Therefore, it is not enough for Israel to be right, we must also be wise and clever. This means that we must not take part – under any circumstances – in this judicial process, for the sake of Jews all over the world.
SHLOMO FELDMANNGivatayim
The past and not the future
Regarding “Cabinet in disarray” (editorial, January 8): I would suggest that the prime minister remind the rebellious members of his cabinet that US president Roosevelt was incorrect when he cited December 7, 1941 – the day the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor – as the day that will live in infamy.
That dubious honorific belongs to the day – or weeks – before, when negligence, apathy, and ignorance allowed America’s naval power to be all but crippled. You can be sure that it was those cracks in defense and intelligence preparedness that consumed the attention of analysts, strategists, and academics for weeks on end, and probably to this day.
Similarly, the intense concentration on “the day after” Israel’s war with Hamas and Hezbollah ends may be a bit over the top. There are too many variables that make analytical predictions and potential scenarios little more than New Year’s Day projections. Until these issues are resolved, there’s little point in prophesying on potential models and paradigms.
If anything, what went on “the day before” needs to be stringently examined. What took place on Simchat Torah was not some disruptive sabotage mission conducted by a small band of underground operatives. The failures that allowed an estimated few thousand armed terrorists to successfully infiltrate Israeli territory and commit unspeakable acts of murder, and kidnap some 240 men, women, and children must never be repeated. In this case, the past and not the future is with what we need to be particularly concerned.
Now, not later, is the time to go over lessons learned and to ensure that Israel will no longer experience another day of infamy.
BARRY NEWMANGinot Shomron
Most important Palestinians
I want to agree 100% with Sheila Nazarian (“Palestinians don’t want a two-state solution,” January 7). On the other hand, she, like so many others, continues to overlook the most important Palestinians – those who live in Israel. They represent over 20% of the population and can be seen to be content. Considering the atmosphere during these 75 years, this is incredible.
Perhaps they would prefer to be known as Israeli Arabs and not get involved in this subject. However, they must not be forgotten.
STEPHEN POHLMANNTel Aviv
Clearly deficient
Regarding “Reasonableness annulment nixed” (January 2): The fact that the High Court published its decision as to whether it could or could not void an act of the government using “reasonable” as the criteria while the country is at war, and needs to be unified, is in my opinion, ample proof that the selection process in which they were appointed is clearly deficient.
This decision was not urgent and could have been deferred until once the national emergency was no longer in effect. This decision may reawaken the divisions that many think were part of the reason that Hamas decided to initiate its attack at the time it did. If the justices were too obtuse to take that into consideration when deciding when to publish their decision, I’m not sure that they are qualified for their positions.
HAIM SHALOM SNYDERPetah Tikva
I find the High Court’s striking down of the basic law legislation which restricted the application of the reasonableness standard to be unreasonable, but it needs to be obeyed even as it illustrates the need for judicial reform. For now, however, we need to make sure that the court’s decision does not disrupt our current unity, as we pursue the permanent pacification of Gaza, followed by the neutralization of Iran’s proxies in Lebanon and Syria and ultimately Iran itself.
When the time comes, we need to start with one essential change to the basic laws, one about which almost everyone should agree: requiring a supermajority of the Knesset, and preferably consecutive Knessets, to enact basic laws.Only after that change should judicial reform be reconsidered.
ALAN STEINNetanya
Increasingly dire warnings
Regarding “Taub Center: Israel is burning up, and it’s not from rocket fire” (January 8): The subhead states that “the number of Israelis dying from high temperatures is rising and nobody seems to care.”
At a time when climate experts are issuing increasingly dire warnings and there has been a significant increase in the frequency and severity of heatwaves, droughts, wildfires, storms, and floods, the world seems to be generally continuing with business as usual. For example, we are continuing to destroy forests, replacing carbon-sequestering trees with methane-belching cows.
Despite the increasing abundance of plant-based substitutes which have the appearances, textures, and tastes very similar to meat and other animal products, the vast majority of the world’s people are not making the one change that would provide a chance to avert a climate catastrophe – shifting to plant-based diets.
It would reduce the emissions from cows of the very potent greenhouse gas, methane, and, even more importantly, enable the replanting of trees on the vast areas of the world now used for grazing and growing feed crops for animals, and helping to reduce atmospheric CO2 from its current very dangerous level to a much safer one.
If we don’t make such changes, how will we respond when future generations ask us what we did when there was still time to avert a climate catastrophe?RICHARD H. SCHWARTZShoresh