Israel Supreme Court Justice Aharon Barak

However even when President Reagan reversed the Supreme Court’s direction in the 1980s appointing four conservative justices Israel’s Supreme Court remained in a time warp.

Until recently.

In her nearly three years as Minister of Justice Ayelet Shaked has appointed some 230 judges to Israel’s court system including four to the Supreme Court.

Shaked was interviewed on stage at the Eilat Journalists Conference by Channel 2’s Rina Matzliach who often likes to answer her own questions before the interview subject can and resorts to theatrics to keep the crowd’s attention focused on her. But Shaked has stage presence herself and she defended her picks.

“I want judges with a conservative worldview ” Shaked said. “It’s not a matter of left or right. But much to my dismay in the last 20 years there is far too much judicial intervention in political matters.”

Try as she might there are limits even to what the Justice Minister can accomplish. Her position is only safe as long as the present coalition lasts. Even after her Supreme Court appointments the majority of the 15 Supreme Court judges lean left.

Shaked would like to move the needle further by recruiting more religious judges. “Judges should be representative of all sectors of Israel’s society including settlers and chareidim and this doesn’t have to come at the expense of professionalism ” Shaked added.

This last could be wishful thinking on Shaked’s part because even though there are growing numbers of chareidi attorneys who possess the professional credentials to be appointed as judges chareidim face halachic prohibitions against serving as judges on secular Israeli courts.

RECALIBRATION

No Longer Taboo?

Would the US ever resort to a preemptive nuclear strike against North Korea or Iran?

Setting aside President Trump’s considerations for now the conventional wisdom has always been no according to William Burr a senior analyst at the National Security Archive (NSA) in Washington D.C.

The NSA a project of George Washington University collects and publishes declassified documents acquired through the Freedom of Information Act.

Last week the NSA released new documents detailing both President Eisenhower’s and President Kennedy’s aversion to using atomic weapons in the aftermath of World War II when President Truman ordered nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 killing more than 200 000 Japanese civilians and forcing Japan’s early surrender.

A poll taken that same month showed 85% of Americans approved of President Truman’s decision but support has steadily dropped over the years. A 2015 poll found that only 46% of Americans still view the atomic bombing of Japan as “the right thing to do.”

However the times may be changing.

A survey published in the summer edition of the MIT press journal International Security by professors Scott Sagan of Stanford and Benjamin Valentino of Dartmouth found that contrary to the nuclear taboo thesis a clear majority of Americans (59.1%) would approve the preemptive use of nukes against Iran even at a cost of two million Iranian civilians if the government believed that such a strike would save the lives of 20 000 American soldiers. An even larger percentage (63.1%) would approve of a conventional bombing attack designed to kill 100 000 Iranian civilians to intimidate Iran into surrendering.

“When faced with realistic scenarios in which they are forced to contemplate a trade-off between sacrificing a large number of US troops in combat or deliberately killing even larger numbers of foreign noncombatants the majority of respondents approve of killing civilians in an effort to end the war ” write Sagan and Valentino.

I couldn’t help but think that this poll could make good cannon fodder for Israel and the IDF — next time they are forced to fight and are accused of using excessive force in self-defense. (Originally featured in Mishpacha Issue 688)