Vindictive article

There is so much to deconstruct in Melanie Phillips’s vindictive article (Israel’s protesters are the real threat to its democracy now, 25 August), but I will limit myself to its most glaring distortions.

Phillips ignores the fact that of over 1000 laws enacted since the 1992 Basic Law governing human freedoms and equality, the courts intervened in exactly 22. Yet Phillips sees this as arbitrary power thwarting the government’s ability to govern.

Phillips ignores that without a constitution or a bicameral system, courts provide the only safeguard preventing governments riding roughshod over basic human rights.

Phillips ignores that in the run-up to the elections, almost no reference was made to judicial reform and the protests erupted only after these plans were unleashed without any thought of consensus-building.

Phillips ignores that the “Ashkenazi elites” supposedly behind the protests and “seeking to maintain power” face Netanyahu, Rotman, Levin and others, all Ashkenazim themselves.

Terming Opposition Leader Lapid the “protest leader”, which he is not at all, Phillips berates him for aiming to replace Netanyahu’s government. In democracies that is precisely what oppositions do!

Born in London, I spent 40 years defending Israel including as Ambassador to Ireland, Australia and India, often at deep personal risk. The same applies to thousands of fighter pilots and senior military officers opposing this overhaul who risked their lives defending Israel. We resent being referred to as “dangerous anarchists” (Ben-Gvir), “Nazi storm-troopers” (Netanyahu’s son) “scum of the earth” (Minister Distel) and “traitors” (Phillips herself, language that led to Rabin’s assassination).

I direct Phillips’ final words towards her: “For shame.”

(Ambassador) Mark Sofer
Israel

Israel’s judicial system needs adjustment but that requires careful consideration and the support of Knesset members from across the political spectrum rather than being rushed through unilaterally.

Israel’s political system lacks “checks and balances”.  It has no written constitution and no Upper House.  The highly proportional electoral system requires radical reform but that is unlikely to occur.  Individual Knesset members are not directly accountable to any electorate; citizens wishing to write to “their MK” can’t, because there is no such person. Additionally, there is no postal or absentee vote and a referendum cannot be held as that would require legislation by the Knesset.

Melanie Phillips portrays current events as a struggle by an Ashkenazi elite to retain power in a changing Israel through weaponising the economy, blackmailing the government, and endangering the country’s security. While she conveniently ignores the fact that many Jewish men neither serve in the army nor work and totally disregards the right-wing invective and incitement that preceded the murders of Emil Grunzweig and Yitzhak Rabin, she does manage to name Shikla Bressler as the “Madame Mao of the Insurrection”.

The demonstrators (not all Ashkenazi or secular) are hardly traitors. They’re active because they realise that if Israel comes to be dominated by authoritarian ultra-nationalists, Haredim and long-haired hoodlums from West Bank hill outposts, then the Israel, admired as the “Start-Up Nation”, will be gone forever and more’s the pity.

Prof Stanley Waterman
University of Haifa

Having read Melanie Phillips’ article vilifying the Israeli protest movement we feel it is incumbent upon us — as British Olim active in the fight to save Israeli democracy — to set the record straight. The outrageousness of Phillips’ claims would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that our freedom and our children’s future are on the line.  After eight months of struggle, as our political reality becomes ever more dystopian, after being blasted by skunk water and being harassed by supporters of the government’s judicial coup, we can say clearly: for us, this is personal.

There is no space in a short letter to detail Phillips’ multiple disingenuous and misleading claims. But we do want to stress that the government’s “reforms” will most certainly not “reinstate the balance between judges and politicians”. They will grant the prime minister and his cabinet virtually unlimited power, with control over not just the judiciary, but many other, currently independent, state institutions. Nothing will exist in Israel’s fragile constitutional system to protect fundamental civil rights from government abuse.

We would also like to clarify: Ehud Barak is not “leading the protests”. He’s involved, but so are many former political and military leaders from across the spectrum.

Similarly, the “left-wing writers” Phillips’ disparages include journalists from left and right, some of whose careers have been spent defending Israel from its detractors. Since freedom of the press is also under threat by proposals of the current government, it is unfortunate that she chooses to further undermine her colleagues in this particular moment. This is not about left vs right. It’s about liberal democracy and the rule of law vs authoritarian populism and extreme religious nationalism.

We made Aliyah to a Jewish and democratic state. Today we are fighting to rescue this Zionist ideal from an unprecedented assault by our own government.

Kalela Lancaster
Paul Gross
Founding members
Olim for Democracy

Refurbish, not demolish

I read with some sadness the news that the Brighton and Hove shul may be demolished (Don’t protect our shul, we want to demolish it!, 25 August).

The outstanding piece of art is invariably worth saving, and once it’s gone, it’s gone forever.

On a pragmatic approach,  when a shul closes for redevelopment invariably only 50-60 per cent of the original members return as they are now comfortable in their new surroundings.

I attend regularly a very large shul (capacity 750-800) on Saturdays in Central London. There are seldom more than 45-50 people there unless there is a special occasion. This is normal for many shuls today.

The point I am making is that refurbishment rather than demolition is a preferable route, especially in this instance.

Richard Midda
London NW3

The same team

Angela Kiverstein’s plea for us all to be part of “Team Living” (Campaign for assisted dying robs me of my life, 25 August) is well-taken. Judaism is about celebrating life to the full.

That is why we fight cancer or other life-threatening diseases as much as we can and for as long as we can. I speak personally, having had an aggressive cancer myself a few years back, while her own ongoing experience of it shows that one can still function positively and creatively.

But what about those whose battle is virtually over and who are in such pain or distress that they are desperate to let go?

Contrary to what she suggests, there is no conflict between helping those who want to live to the very last moment and helping those who do not want to endure any more suffering.

What is essential in both scenarios is personal choice and each individual deciding which route they want to take.

The problem is that at the moment there is no choice. Just suffer on. It is only by Parliament legalising assisted dying (for those shortly facing death, mentally competent and who so wish) that we can give people options.

In the Bible we are told that “There is a time to be born and a time to die” (Ecclesiastes 3.2) — but it leaves open who makes that decision. No one else should decide for Angela, only she should, while others also deserve the right to choose for themselves.

“Team Living” and “Team Being Able to Shorten One’s Painful  Death” should be mutually supportive.

Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain
Chair, Dignity in Dying
London NW3