Amid protests and counterprotests, hysterical statements from politicians, and hyperbolic newspaper articles, the debate over judicial reform in Israel also elicited some careful and serious argument—some of which could be found in Mosaic. Yechiel Oren-Harush carefully lays out the case for restraining the Jewish’s state’s supreme court, defends the proposed constitutional changes, and responds to the arguments of these reforms’ opponents:

As a result of [the] judicial revolutions in Israeli government, the basic rules underlying the Israeli governmental structure are constantly shifting. The judiciary now has seemingly exclusive authority to keep changing them as it sees fit—and it does so frequently. Admittedly, common-law systems are intended to evolve, and administrative law under such systems is built up precedent by precedent over the course of centuries. But common law also needs to develop within a fixed and immutable set of rules, established either in a ratified constitution or based on a broad societal consensus. . . . Often, the argument has been raised regarding the problem of the Basic Laws being kneaded “like playdough” by the Knesset to force the Israeli constitution to meet the needs of various governments. And yet, the very same thing can be said of the Court, which time and again changes the very bedrock principles and rules of the relations among the branches on an ongoing basis in order to deal with difficulties arising in this or that case.

Foremost among the concerns of supporters of the status quo is the role the high court has appointed itself as the guardian of human rights, and the fear that, with the court’s power circumscribed, an unrestrained Knesset might trample on individual liberties. To this, Oren-Harush responds:

[Q]uestions regarding the scope of human rights, as well as the proper balance between them and other interests and rights in cases of concrete clashes between them, are usually questions touching on values, not law. Furthermore, it is almost always reasonable to assume that opinions will differ on these matters and that such differences would not be reducible to a question of expertise. There is, in other words, no reason to demand the nation defer to the value judgments of a small group of unelected officials on the basis of their legal training. Instead, the proper place for deciding such moral questions is the Knesset.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.