....and also about mynas and other invaders

Invasive species constitute one of the most severe threats to biodiversity.
Anyone who is concerned about species richness and environmental quality in general (- all of us) ought to be aware of the high risk posed by the invasion of new species into their environment. Despite the above, I am surprised by the quantity and character of the responses published every time the issue of house cats comes up for discussion in any public forum, and from members of the academic community in particular, for two reasons:
The first is the lack of a sufficient scientific basis for the claims, in the form of studies showing direct competition between invasive species and native species in Israel. The invasion of a bird species in Gush Dan is not equivalent to the invasion of a species into an isolated area on an island in the Pacific Ocean; therefore, there is a need for studies conducted in Israel (see the response on the subject by biologist Dr. Nir Sapir). The second reason is the sweeping mobilization in the fight against house cats, alongside the neglect by some of those fighting them of other environmental problems.
Cats hunt wildlife in fairly high numbers, a subject that has also been studied in Israel (A cat in the house, a tiger outside). Apart from the damage caused by the direct hunting of wildlife, cats are also dangerous to the natural population of the wildcat species, since they create hybrids, with far-reaching effects: the lifestyles of the hybrid cats, including their activity hours, differ from those of wildcats, so that native species suddenly face an apex predator they are not adapted to deal with.

Still, it is interesting that when a cat catches an animal in a city park it is considered a threat to wildlife, whereas if it were a bat, we would credit it with engaging in legal and legitimate biological pest control. Cats do indeed eliminate an enormous number of wildlife animals (such as mice and rats) in inhabited areas, but if that were not the case, we would probably have to seek alternative solutions for this need, as we do with insects. About the biological control of mosquitoes using insectivorous bats, a joint project by researchers from Tel Aviv University and the Ministry of Environmental Protection, can be read at the following link:
Biological control of mosquitoes using insectivorous bats in the city of Ramat Gan
This is a welcome project that one can only hope will multiply, something that does not contradict the fact that we encourage the multiplication of a species of insectivorous bat whose effects on native species we may not be aware of. After a small amount of data was collected in the field system, we found that in central Israel there are bat species whose presence in the area we did not know about at all, and it seems that the word "may" is unnecessary. This example does not diminish in any way the importance of the project or the damage caused by cats; it is brought here to highlight the fact that when it comes to cats, our sensitivity to the disruption of the natural balance increases dramatically. I allow myself to formulate and write a few words about cats, but conservation is a matter for professionals. Therefore, let us turn to authoritative sources to examine the status of house cats in relation to pressing conservation issues.

In the Red Book of Vertebrates in Israel, house cats are mentioned only 4 times. One of them, incidentally, is in the context of the golden spiny mouse. There may be additional studies, perhaps even many observations of cats preying on squirrels in the Hermon (there are none), but if one wishes to mobilize public support for the fight against house cats, the findings should be published and brought to all our attention. Until then, we can conclude that according to what we know house cats are not at all among the leading species in the race for extinction. An examination of conservation struggles in Israel reveals that their relative share in them is doubtful (...). As for habitat destruction, cats cannot be blamed for the mining of the Samar dunes, for example. In terms of management and species protection, cats are not responsible for the criminal treatment of fruit bats or cormorants in fish ponds. It is interesting that, compared with the four species mentioned in the Red Book, a brief search I conducted in the archive of the Zoological Society mailing list found about a million messages devoted to house cats, a number roughly one million times larger than the number of people present at the demonstration in support of the Samar dunes that took place in Jerusalem.

As for invasive species, a distinction must be made between the private and public spheres.
Whoever finds an abandoned kitten and cares for it (or worse still—a myna chick), is likely to contribute more to nature conservation than someone who abandoned it because it is an invasive species. I admit I have grown somewhat tired of reading and searching for articles in education, so I leave it to anyone interested to do a quick search online; they will soon find many sources of information about the importance of fostering the connection between youth and animals, as well as about the potential harm inherent in the way invasive species are presented and in how they are handled. In a broader view, it seems that what threatens nature in the country more than house cats is the brutality and irresponsibility of officeholders, and to cultivate those, there is no better means than domestic animals.

The practical meaning of "separating the private sphere from the public one" is professionalism.
I expect a teacher whose students found an Alexandrine parakeet chick or an injured puppy to guide them on how to care for it, and not to lecture them about invasive species. I expect a government authority to set professional policy and act according to the law. With all due sorrow, this sometimes also includes killing animals. If it acts professionally, it will minimize this as much as possible.
The Society for the Protection of Nature did not establish an information system that receives reports and sightings from the public, but it hurried to do so in the name of protecting the nation from invasive species. A student who saw a swift lizard on a hike is invited to keep the information to themselves (no longer..), while a myna is one they are asked to report to the authorities.

In Israel, nature conservation and the prevention of animal suffering are fields that stand at opposite poles, but this is not an absolute fact that cannot be challenged; it is possible to bring them closer and narrow the gap. This may be the case in other countries and may also prevail here, but as of today the use of (ostensibly) scientific arguments in implementing policy for the management of invasive animal species is nothing more than an excuse for criminal amateurism and the authorities' ineptitude. Whoever defines themself as an animal lover is also concerned for the fate of wildlife. They do not enjoy the sight of hungry cats scattered in the streets and act to prevent their multiplication. They are probably not a preferred candidate for a position that requires shooting stray dogs or for the committee selecting the director-general of the authority, but as of today they are also very far from being the most severe threat to nature conservation.

Further reading:
The impact of domestic cats on wildlife and nature conservation /  Inbal Brickner-Brown