Israel -Everyone Has An Opinion.

+++++++++++++++++

 Help EMET Prevent Antisemitism in American Classrooms and Campuses

Dear Richard,

It is a dire situation for our nation’s Jewish or Zionist college students. We have all heard horror stories about young women with stars of David around their necks or young men wearing yarmulkes, even members of secular Jewish fraternities and sororities, being spat upon or being verbally or physically harassed on campus. If they plan to hold a pro-Israel event, oftentimes their flyers are defaced with swastikas.

Worse: According to a survey by stopantisemitism.org, many young Jews are reporting feeling ashamed to wear symbols that identify them as Jews, or to speak up in defense of the very existence of the state of Israel. 

Just in March of 2023, alone, according to the AMCHA Initiative, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign at Harvard held a “vigil for Palestinian lives”, where they demonized the state of Israel, calling it an “apartheid state” that commits “massacres”. This is commonplace. At the University of Chicago, Students for Justice in Palestine held an event whose advertisement compared Israel with apartheid South Africa. A Jewish student at Haverford College was forced to leave a birthday party when the host found out that she was Jewish and had attended Birthright.

These are just the tip of the iceberg. Every day, we hear more and more of such painful, discriminatory assaults on our nation’s Jewish students.

We are all painfully aware of the steep uptick of antisemitic incidents in the United States. According to a recent American Jewish Committee report, fully 89 percent of American Jews feel that antisemitism is a problem in the United States, and 82 percent believe it has increased over the past 5 years.

But it is our American Jewish college students that are on the front lines.

And many do not report these incidents but suffer their grave injustices in silence.

And when a student complains, (which is rare), they usually are not taken seriously by their university administrators. Although universities now have Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Departments, Jews are now considered part of “white privilege “ in this country, and the complaints and the rights of Jewish students are met with a dismissive attitude.

For far too long, Jewish and pro-Israel students have not only been intimidated by their peers but oftentimes, by their professors and teaching assistants. For example, in November of 2021, at John Hopkins University, Rasha Anayah, a T.A. posted on Twitter, “ethical dilemma: if you have to grade a zionist (sic) students exam, do you still give them all their points even though they support your ethnic cleansing? Like idk.” When 77% of the respondents replied, “Free Palestine! Fail them,” she wrote, “like I agree but also too many of you want me to get fired.”

No punitive actions were taken against her. 

This would not have happened when it comes to any other minority group. There are Constitutional protections for most minority students, as spelled out in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That means certain standards of behavior are codified, and therefore legally actionable. It means the universities, and K through 12 schools, are to be held accountable for such biased and hate-infested atrocities.

EMET is here to try to fight this injustice. We are working with Congress, almost every day to, among many other issues, reintroduce the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which would use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism so that university presidents and deans can recognize antisemitism when they see it.

If anyone were to punter the “N” word on a college campus, he would be immediately expelled, as well he should be. Yet, somehow, when a Jew is described as an “F’ing Zionist Pig”, that is considered freedom of speech.

And we, at EMET, firmly believe that what happens on the college campus does not simply remain on the college campus. Our nation’s school systems and universities are incubators of ideas. If there is just one minority group for whom it is considered okay to threaten, intimidate, and bully, our nation’s students will graduate and bring these attitudes into their workplaces. And it will help shape their policy positions, both toward Jews and towards the state of Israel.

This intimidation, harassment, and bullying of our Jewish and Zionist students have gone on for far too long. We need one federal standard of antisemitism, not one that varies from state to state.

And maybe then, our nation’s Jewish and Zionist students will be able to walk freely on college campuses, wearing symbols that proudly identify them as Jews, and they will feel free to speak up in defense of the one Jewish state in the world, the nation-state of Israel, without fear of intimidation, bullying or physical harassment.

We are asking for your help. We cannot do this alone.

We ask you to please partner with us to the greatest extent you comfortably can.

Invest in MET. Invest in the Truth

Thank you very much

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Democrats should stop meddling in Israeli democracy

The Biden foreign-policy team is just the latest Democratic administration that has sought to interfere with the politics of the Jewish state to undermine Benjamin Netanyahu.

By Tom Cotton

There is one foreign leader for whom the Democratic Party seems to reserve special scorn. Leading Democrats have called him a “reactionary,” a “racist,” an “ethno-nationalist.” They’ve accused him of committing “war crimes” and of leading an “apartheid state.” President Joe Biden has called him “extreme” and said they don’t agree on “a damn thing.” Strong words.

Who is this monster, you may ask? Were the Democrats talking about Russian President Vladimir Putin? Or China’s Xi Jinping? Or perhaps Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran? No, they were referring to Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister and one of America’s best friends. Once again, these Democrats have proven their tendency to coddle our enemies and condemn our friends.

But Democrats don’t stop at mere words. They’re working right now to undermine Netanyahu and his government.

The Washington Free Beacon reported on March 6 that the U.S. State Department is funneling tax dollars to Netanyahu’s domestic opponents. Since 2020, State has sent more than $38,000 to something known as the “Movement for Quality Government” for so-called “democracy education.”

So, what is the Movement for Quality Government and how good is this “democracy education”? This “movement” is an activist group that’s fomenting unrest against the Israeli government and demanding Netanyahu’s resignation. In recent days, left-wing demonstrators associated with this group have protested the government’s proposed judicial reforms. Last week, hundreds of protesters harassed Netanyahu’s wife, Sara, forcing police to intervene and escort her to safety.

Far from staying neutral in Israel’s domestic affairs, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken lectured Netanyahu about the judicial reforms to his face, tacitly siding with the demonstrators. Some Democratic senators have also condemned the reform proposals. Which is awfully rich coming from the Democrats, who have voted to shred this Senate’s ancient rules to pack our Supreme Court and to rewrite our founding documents. I guess when American liberals want to change the courts, it’s the only way to save democracy, but when Israeli conservatives want to, it’s a threat to democracy. Go figure.

The State Department doesn’t even deny that it’s funneling money to these left-wing activities, by the way. Which is troubling, because it’s a clear violation of the usual State Department policy against funding foreign partisan organizations. Not only is this U.S.-funded organization subverting a foreign government, it’s subverting the government of one of our closest allies. Blinken should immediately apologize to the prime minister of Israel, demand your money back and open an investigation into how this happened.

But then again, I suspect we already know how this happened. After all, the Democratic Party has been meddling in Israeli democracy to undermine Benjamin Netanyahu for more than a quarter-century.

By his own admission, former President Bill Clinton intervened in the 1996 Israeli election to support Netanyahu’s opponent, Shimon Peres. Clinton met with Peres, dispatched his own campaign advisers, dangled policy shifts to Israel—all to get Peres across the finish line. Netanyahu prevailed, nevertheless.

Team Clinton intervened yet again in 1999. The Clinton White House reportedly urged Democratic donors to give money to Netanyahu’s next opponent, Ehud Barak. And it didn’t stop there. Clinton’s political advisers again campaigned against Netanyahu, while the Clinton State Department allegedly spread falsehoods about the Israeli government and Netanyahu himself. Netanyahu lost this time around, though he was more a victim of his own success against Palestinian terrorism than Barak and Clinton’s campaign against him. But he returned to the Knesset just three years later and became prime minister again in 2009.

The Obama State Department was, if anything, worse than Clinton’s, funneling hundreds of thousands of American tax dollars to a group called the “OneVoice Movement.” Not coincidentally, OneVoice partnered with an organization running anti-Netanyahu ads advised by, you guessed it, a top Obama campaign operative.

Of course, Democrats will insist they’re innocent of these charges and aren’t meddling in Israel’s democracy. But Israelis know the truth. Obama’s meddling was so pervasive that an astounding 62% of Israelis thought he was interfering. Indeed, one Foreign Policy magazine headline read, and this is a quote: “Obama is pursuing regime change in Israel.” Not Iran, our mortal enemy. But Israel, mind you.

Now Joe Biden is simply following in Obama’s footsteps by trying to sabotage Netanyahu. In 2021, the Biden administration reportedly pressured the United Arab Emirates to cancel an Abraham Accords Summit—all to deprive Netanyahu of a diplomatic victory ahead of that year’s election. And after Netanyahu won the 2022 election, the Biden administration immediately sought to undermine his coalition government by trying to veto key cabinet appointments.

This most recent scandal is not an aberration, therefore. It’s been the de facto policy of the Democratic Party for a quarter century to beat Netanyahu, though he keeps beating the Democrats. Though it does provide more evidence yet again for the old saw that while it’s dangerous to be America’s enemy, it can be fatal to be America’s friend—at least when Democrats are in charge.

Instead of trying to topple the democratically elected government of Israel, I would suggest we should support it. Israelis are more than capable of managing their domestic affairs without Democratic meddling. But they need our help to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb; they need our help to achieve peace with their neighbors; and they need our help to defeat the terrorists threatening both our nations.

Yet they don’t get that from the Biden administration, either. Iran is racing towards a nuclear breakout while the president dithers. His administration can barely utter the words “Abraham Accords.” And the president is breaking U.S. law to subsidize the Palestinian Authority’s support for terrorism.

A few years back, Congress passed the Taylor Force Act, which prohibits non-humanitarian aid to the P.A. until it ends its so-called “martyr payments”—a euphemism for bounties given to Palestinian terrorists or their families for maiming and killing Jews. So, the administration has instead funneled tens of millions of your tax dollars to non-governmental organizations to build roads, sidewalks, parking lots and other infrastructure projects on behalf of the P.A. As a result, since money is fungible, the P.A. can ignore these basic responsibilities of government and instead keep pouring more money into its pay-for-slay program.

The contrast couldn’t be starker. If the P.A. wants to bankroll terrorists and their families, the Biden administration will contort the law beyond recognition to fund the Palestinians. But if a center-right government gets elected once again in Israel, the Biden administration will work overtime to undermine it.

This is exactly backwards. We should demand the P.A. stop subsidizing terrorism before it gets another penny of U.S. tax dollars. And while we’re at it, we should pass the Taylor Force Martyr Payment Prevention Act, which I’m reintroducing this week to sanction foreign banks that process these so-called “martyr payments” for the P.A.

Meanwhile, Biden and his administration should quit treating Netanyahu like he’s a rival or even an adversary and start treating him as he is—a war hero, a courageous patriot, a towering figure of modern Israel, and most important for us, a great friend of America.

Republican Sen. Tom Cotton is the junior senator of Arkansas. This was originally delivered as a speech on the Senate floor.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Saudi Arabia and the Peace Process

By Ted Belman    

The trouble with the peace process is that it is rigged against Israel. It is a vehicle forced on her by the international community to enable it to impose its will on her.

It all started with UNSC Res 242, which established the principle of land for peace. Just how much land or peace was not described. It was left to the parties to each cut a deal. This resolution in no way threatened Israel because she was left with a free hand to define what she considered to be “secure” borders. In the meantime, she was authorized by the U.N., by virtue of this resolution, to remain in occupation.

Over the years, the U.S. forced Israel to participate in a “peace process” that kept limiting her negotiating room. Today she is faced with accepting the Saudi Plan (1967 borders and a divided Jerusalem) or having it imposed on her.

This is so even though both houses of Congress have in the past supported a united Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

In April 1990, the House, with the Senate concurring, passed a resolution acknowledging that “Jerusalem is and should remain the capital of the State of Israel” and expressing the belief that “Jerusalem must remain an undivided city. It did so recognizing that “since 1967[,] Jerusalem has been a united city administered by Israel” and because of “ambiguous statements by the Government of the United States concerning the right of Jews to live in all parts of Jerusalem [that] raise concerns in Israel that Jerusalem might one day be redivided.”

In 1995, the Jerusalem Embassy Act was passed with overwhelming majorities in both houses. It provided that “Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.” It went so far as to cut appropriations to the Executive by 50% for certain purposes until such time as the Embassy was opened.

This legislation was at odds with the constitutional power of the president to conduct foreign policy and to recognize foreign sovereignty over territory. All presidents since its passage have exercised their waivers semi-annually to postpone this legislation.

It seems reasonably clear that Congress cannot usurp the power of the president to make foreign policy.

Israel’s liberation from this deadly process depends solely on Americans taking back their country. A new president could overrule the State Department and endorse the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995.

You will recall that President Truman thwarted his State Department and instructed his Ambassador to the U.N. to be the first to recognize Israel.

Richard Holbrooke, in a fascinating article titled “Washington’s Battle Over Israel’s Birth“ explains the tug-of-war between two groups: President Truman and Clark Clifford favoring recognition on the one side, and Secretary of State George C. Marshall and his entourage at the State Department favoring a U.N. trusteeship instead of partition on the other.

Secretary of Defense Forrestal explained to Clifford what motivated his group: “There are thirty million Arabs on one side and about 600,000 Jews on the other. Why don’t you face up to the realities?”

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. (The more things change, the more they remain the same.)

Holbrooke concluded:

But to this day, many think that Marshall and Lovett were right on the merits and that domestic politics was the real reason for Truman’s decision. Israel, they argue, has been nothing but trouble for the United States.

But Holbrooke himself begged to differ:

Truman’s decision, although opposed by almost the entire foreign policy establishment, was the right one — and despite complicated consequences that continue to this day, it is a decision all Americans should recognize and admire.

A recent bipartisan poll commissioned by The Israel Project found that “[b]y an 8 to 1 Margin, Americans Say U.S. Should Side with Israel in Conflict with the Palestinians.” Yet Obama and the State Department have a polar opposite view.

Governor Palin has described Obama’s foreign policy effectively as kissing up to our enemies and dumping on our allies, particularly “our most treasured ally, Israel.”

Just in the past week, 327 congressmen signed a letter to Secretary Clinton, above mentioned, reaffirming support for Israel in these terms,

The United States and Israel are close allies whose people share a deep and abiding friendship based on a shared commitment to core values including democracy, human rights and freedom of the press and religion. Our two countries are partners in the fight against terrorism and share an important strategic relationship. A strong Israel is an asset to the national security of the United States and brings stability to the Middle East ……and expressing “deep concern over recent tension.”

In other words, Obama was being blamed for the tension and was expected to end it. The letter also said that “we must remain focused on the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear weapons program.”

Unfortunately, this letter was silent on Obama’s plans to divide Jerusalem. It would be of great value in the battle for Jerusalem now being waged by Israel if both houses would once again reaffirm their desire to have the U.S. recognize a united Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

There is a headwind blowing in U.S. national politics, and Israel can surely benefit from it. At the moment, the headwind is fueled by the anger over the passing of the health care bill and the growing debt and deficits. But it goes beyond specifics to general anger over Obama’s apparent Marxist and Muslim proclivities manifested in his policies.

“Take back our country” means return it to our constitutional, capitalistic, and Judeo-Christian roots. This movement will embrace a united Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in a heartbeat.

While President Obama is not about to oppose the State Department, the next president could, particularly if he or she campaigns on the issue. Governors Palin and Huckabee are already on record in support of a United Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

The problem is that the Saudis have the U.S. over a barrel of oil. When P.M. Sharon formed a government in 2001, he sent his son to advise Arafat that Barak’s deal was off the table and that Sharon could envision a process whereby the Palestinians might end up with forty-five percent of the occupied territories, but not Jerusalem.

Bush 43, on taking office in 2000, decided not to get involved with a peace process as President Clinton had done. For the Saudis, this wasn’t good enough.

It appeared that the United States had made a strategic decision to adopt Sharon’s policy as American policy, or so the Crown Prince understood.

He sent Prince Bandar to Bush with an urgent message: “Starting today, you go your way and we will go our way. From then on, the Saudis will look out for their own national interests.”

Within thirty-six hours, Bandar was on his way to Riyadh with a conciliatory response from Bush. When Bandar returned, Powell cornered him.

“What the f*ck are you doing?” witnesses recall Powell asking. “You’re putting the fear of God in everybody’s hearts here. We’ve all come rushing here to hear this revelation that you bring from Saudi Arabia. You scared the sh*t out of everybody.”

As a result of this exchange, Pres Bush made his vision speech in June ’02 in which he supported a Palestinian state subject to many preconditions. Ten months later, the U.S. invaded Iraq with Saudi blessing, and one week later, the Roadmap was announced, which included the Saudi Plan calling for a Palestinian state with ’67 borders subject to minor changes and East Jerusalem as its capital.

Sharon first reacted to the new American direction by saying that Israel was no Czechoslovakia, and then he never mentioned it again. He decided to cut his losses. He announced the Disengagement Plan from Gaza, thinking it would strengthen Israel’s hold on Judea and Samaria. He even got Bush to issue a letter in ’04 acknowledging that “[i]n light of the new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be the full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.”

Obama has now rejected that letter as binding and is pushing for the Saudi Plan. Obviously, the Saudis and Obama will not give up on East Jerusalem for the Palestinians.

Israel must continue to claim Jerusalem — all of it — as its undivided capital. Obama will be left with no option but to abandon Israel so far as his executive powers permit him. Should the S.C. go so far as to attempt to impose a solution, it will have in effect abrogated the Roadmap, thereby freeing Israel of it. Obama may not be prepared to go this far, what with Nov. ’10 elections looming and presidential primaries a year later.

In addition, Saudi Arabia is pushing America to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. This is a more pressing concern for them. So far, Obama has not agreed.

Other factors that may force the peace process to the back burner is a possible third intifadah or war with Hamas or Hezbollah, or an Israeli attack on Iran.

Israel must withstand the pressure to give into Obama’s demands. The upcoming elections will ameliorate the pressure, and hopefully the next president, probably a Republican, will end the pressure altogether.

Republicans should pledge themselves in these upcoming elections to make America energy-independent within ten years by exploiting all available sources of energy. It can be done. It’s the only that way Americans can fully take back their country and rid themselves of Saudi pressure both at home and abroad

Without the Saudis making trouble, America and Israel are natural allies

Ted Belman is the editor of Israpundit. He recently made aliya from Canada and is now living in Jerusalem.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thomas Nides should not interfere in Israel’s internal affairs

The U.S. ambassador’s comments and actions on Israeli domestic matters violate international law.

By Morton A. Klein

U.S. Ambassador to Israel Thomas Nides has persisted in interfering in Israel’s internal affairs, egregiously violating the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Affairs, which requires diplomats to “respect the laws and regulations of the receiving state” and “not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State.” While collaborating on foreign matters of mutual interest (such as working together to counter Iran) would be welcome, interfering in Israel’s internal affairs is off limits.

Yet Nides regularly makes hostile demands and exerts pressure that harms Israel’s security and sovereignty. He does so on issues like Israel’s right to control her own borders and determine security protocols, Jews’ lawful right to build homes and judicial reform.

Nides’ interference includes undiplomatic nastiness and defamation. Nides called Jews who legally build homes in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria “stupid” and “infuriating” (during a webinar with radical BDS group Peace Now). He recently undiplomatically called Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich “stupid” and said, “If I could, I would throw [Smotrich] off the plane.” Nides also brags that his unlawful pressure stopped the essential E-1 building project.

In contrast to his derogatory treatment of Jews and Israel, Nides fails to make lawful public demands on or pressure the Palestinian Authority to end its heinous “pay-to-slay” payments to terrorists who murder Jews, glorification of Jew-killers and building of tens of thousands of illegal structures on Israeli land (reportedly with U.S. assistance).

Israeli diplomats do not tell the United States how to select American judges or where persons of a particular faith can build homes in America. Israel does not pressure America to allow terrorist entities to decide who can enter the U.S. Nides and other U.S. officials should show the same legally required respect towards Israel.

After Nides criticized Israel’s judicial reforms—another clearly internal matter—Israeli Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli appropriately stated: “To Ambassador Nides I say this pure and simple: Mind your own business. You’re not privy to discussions about judicial reform. We’d love to discuss foreign affairs with you if you wish. Respect our democracy.”

Nides then absurdly doubled down, saying: “I really think that most Israelis do not want America to stay out of their business.”

Of course, Nides has no basis for his claim that Israelis want his illegal, “aggressive” (his own word), dangerous, persistent interference in Israel’s internal affairs. There are no Israeli polls showing that Israelis welcome Nides’ unlawful interference. I have not seen Israelis saying: “Oh, I just love it when Tom Nides interferes in our affairs and tells us what to do.” Moreover, Minister Chikli, who was elected by the Israeli people, surely knows what Israelis want far better than Nides does.

Indeed, no self-respecting U.S. ally wants U.S. inference in their internal affairs. For example, when Biden’s new Ambassador to Bahrain Steve Bondy met with NGOs opposed to sentences imposed by the Bahraini government, Bahrainis were outraged. The country’s Foreign Minister Abdullatif al-Zayani informed Bondy that Bondy’s meeting did “not conform to international laws and norms” and was not in accordance with diplomatic work regulations under the Vienna Convention.

Undoubtedly, Israelis are likewise outraged about Nides’s and other U.S. officials’ interference in Israeli’s internal affairs and undermining of Israel’s rights and security while Arab terrorists are attacking, injuring or murdering innocent Israelis every day.

Nides’s bullying, disparaging comments and discrimination against Israelis—especially against Jews who live in the Jewish homelands of Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem—also conflicts with stated U.S. foreign policy on combating antisemitism overseas. The stated mission of the U.S. State Department Office of the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism is to combat overseas antisemitism, which the mission statement defines as “discrimination, prejudice or hatred towards Jews.”

The impact of Nides’ bullying and disparaging statements about Jews and Israelis goes far beyond their impact on Israel’s and the Israeli people’s security and well-being. Nides’ actions and statements send a dangerous message that bullying, disparaging and discriminating against Jews is acceptable anywhere in the world.

Nides’s utter disrespect and constant aggressive meddling also sends a message to all other nations that it may not always be beneficial to be an ally of the United States.

In addition to the Vienna Convention’s requirements that diplomats respect host nations’ laws and not interfere with host nations’ internal affairs, the basic public policy of “comity of nations” requires nations to treat one another with respect.

Perhaps Rabbi Hillel said it best: “Do not do unto others what is hateful to you.” It’s time for Nides and the Biden administration to heed that golden rule and start treating Israel with the same respect and the same non-interference with which the U.S. wants foreign nations to treat the United States.

Morton Klein is the national president of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), the oldest pro-Israel organization in the United States. The ZOA co-founded the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

++++++++++++++++

How to resolve Israel’s judicial reform debate

A “blue ribbon committee” must be appointed to shepherd the reforms into law.

By Rabbi Dov Fische

The Israeli political left will fight anything the Netanyahu government proposes by warning of the “death of democracy.” But what if the government’s controversial judicial reform proposal were endorsed by highly regarded American legal scholars? Would that not demonstrate that the reforms are compatible with democratic values?

With one exception discussed below, all the proposed reforms are not only reasonable but parallel American judicial practice.

1. America’s judicial system works, in part, because the political leanings of its courts are cyclically balanced. For example, elected Democrats create a mostly left-leaning judiciary. Then, in time, elected Republicans stack the judiciary to the right. Thus, over time, American courts shift from left to right and back again.

This is also a check on the courts’ power. For example, a renewed Supreme Court may overturn repugnant precedents despite fealty to stare decisis. This recently occurred when the Court overturned Roe v. Wade. More than 300 other Supreme Court decisions have been thrown out by subsequent courts.

The single most glaring failure of Israel’s judicial system is that this cyclical change is virtually impossible. Because of the method of choosing new justices, over which current justices exercise a veto, the Supreme Court is politically self-perpetuating. Even a leftist judicial nominee like Israel Prize laureate Ruth Gavison was rejected because of her objections to extreme judicial overreach.

This failure to allow for cyclical change is the heart of the problem. In America, the elected president names judges and the elected Senate confirms them. No one claims this is anti-democratic or endangers minority rights.

Such a system is exactly what Israel needs: For the elected prime minister to name judges, who are confirmed by the elected Knesset.

2. In America, the Supreme Court cannot bar a person from office unless he violates a Constitutional rule, such as a minimum age requirement or conviction for treason.

Thus, while Richard Nixon may have broken the law during Watergate and Vice President Spiro Agnew pleaded guilty to all kinds of financial corruption, the Court had no power to unseat them. The elected Congress, however, has the power to impeach, convict, and eject elected politicians. Nixon and Agnew both resigned in order to avoid this.

Israel should adopt the American model. Its Supreme Court should have no say in governmental appointments, which should rest entirely with the elected Knesset.

3. In the U.S., the attorney-general advises the head of government and represents his policies. The attorney-general is appointed by the president and tends to be intensely loyal. When the president leaves office, his attorney-general leaves with him.

In Israel, by contrast, an attorney-general can refuse to represent the government at the Supreme Court and can even argue against the government. Moreover, the government is prohibited from obtaining alternate counsel. An Israeli attorney-general remains in office under any successor government, even if he is opposed to its policies. Accordingly, the attorney-general’s role in Israel should be redefined to mirror that of its American counterpart.

4. In Israel, legal advisors to government officials are appointed and exercise power not only to advise but compel officials to act or refrain from acting. This extraordinary authority vested in unelected bureaucrats should be ended.

5. Under the rules of “justiciability,” the U.S. Supreme Court has no authority to hear matters pertaining to military or political strategic decisions that do not entail matters of law. The same rule should be adopted in Israel, including on issues of religion, something that is taken for granted in America.

6. Any plaintiff appearing before the U.S. Supreme Court must demonstrate “standing.” They are required to show that the claimed wrong harmed them specifically. For example, an industrial concern can be sued by a local resident whose property is being impacted by pollution, but cannot be sued by an NGO. Similarly, Jews cannot sue antisemites like Kanye West or Louis Farrakhan unless they can demonstrate that they have been personally defamed. The requirement of standing should be adopted in Israel as it has been in America.

7. The Israeli Supreme Court can overturn any law it deems “unreasonable.” No such legal standard exists in America. A judge’s personal opinion on what is “reasonable” does not constitute law. Anyone who wants his personal opinion to be part of the law-making process should run for elected office. Israel’s “unreasonable” standard should be abandoned.

The seven proposals above mirror the American judicial system. There is no objective reason, other than cynical politics, for American government officials and American Jewish groups to oppose them.

8. There is one proposed reform that does not sit well: That a simple Knesset majority can overturn a Supreme Court ruling. The legislature should have the power to check and balance the judiciary, but this proposal needs refinement.

To win broad support for it in both Israel and America, a “blue ribbon committee” should be named by Israeli Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Chairman of the Knesset Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee Simcha Rothman to advise on how to advance this reform to its final passage.

This committee should include former U.S. Attorney-General Michael Mukasey, renowned constitutional law expert Nathan Lewin and a third American constitutional scholar selected by Mukasey and Lewin. It should be someone with conservative credentials compatible with the democratically elected Israeli government and known to be fair and above the political fray, such as William Barr or Jonathan Turley.

Any final bill that enjoys their “buy-in” will not satisfy the Israeli left and its demagogic street leaders. However, it will win the approbation of financial markets and signal to fair-minded Israeli moderates, responsible mainstream Jewish organizations and various Western governments that judicial reform in Israel will create a system as reasonable as other Western legal systems.

Rabbi Dov Fischer, a law professor and vice president and senior rabbinic fellow at the Coalition for Jewish Values, is a senior contributing editor at The American Spectator.

+++++++++++++++++