A (2:42)

I know, I know. I mean, and obviously my sympathies. Spurs. Spurs are. Tottenham Hotspur, who are Arsenal's deadly rivals, do like to claim that they are the sort of Jewish club in London. As it happens, I think equal number of Jews support Arsenal. But spurs even use the Y word, which I won't repeat as the. As their sort of nickname and fans embrace the name. They're, you know, riot fans of rival clubs use it as a sort of form of abuse. It gets all very intense. And so there will be listeners to Unholy who are, you know, deep die hard spurs fans who will be happy to see Arsenal suffer for the clay, you know, as they vie to be the big club in North London. Anyway, it's a big, you know, there is a Jewish angle, but the main point is the one you said, which is there is plenty else to be miserable about in the world. And yet somehow this gets us going. The odd thing is we. Anyway, even before Arsenal had this ignomin of defeat yesterday, we were going to talk about football, but of a different kind. And we will later on in the podcast because of course people will know that there was the Super Bowl.

B (3:44)

What Americans call football, you mean?

A (3:47)

Yeah, I mean it obviously isn't. It's American football and you need to have the qualifier there. I know they call football soccer, we call football football and this is American football. But yes, I'm told it's a big event, the super bowl and, and Pete particularly, and everyone gets into this. There's the whole business of the ads. We're going to be talking about one ad in particular later on. But as I said, the. It's ridiculous to be spending energy on this because there are much more important things going on in the world, including where you are. And week after week we have been updating people on the state of play of the government's judicial reform plans. And I know that this was a big week.

B (4:25)

It was indeed this week kind of proved Newton's third law of physics. Every action has its equal opposite reaction. Because what we saw is exactly that on Monday inside the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament, the committee approved the first stages of the judicial overhaul, preparing it essentially for the first reading next week outside, while all this is happening, at least a hundred thousand Israelis marching against the decisions made inside the Knesset. You like to ask me, Jonathan, if the people who are protesting are the left leaning liberals of Tel Aviv. You call them the philharmonic crowd. I remember to make a mental note this week to tell you they weren't. What you saw in Jerusalem was really Israelis of all walks of life from all corners of this land. You saw old people and young people, lots of families, by the way, this is becoming a staple of these protests. You saw religious and secular. It's definitely becoming a very massive movement. The other thing we also saw this week is of course President Herzog getting himself his his knees in the mud and trying to, you know, work some sort of compromise. His first st saying, guys, just push the brakes please. Let's give this the legislation some sort of freeze and try and work on a compromise. That didn't help. So far this is steamrolling ahead.

A (5:46)

I thought the intervention of the President was really interesting because it is, you know, a ceremonial role, a non political role. You cannot imagine an equivalent head of state, say here, you know, the King urging the government to slow down on a key piece of legislation. And yet it seemed to me very much what a President should be doing and an indication of the seriousness of what's going on that he was saying. I really fear for the unity of the country and was, you know, in terms of the language he used and even the sort of optics of it, it was a kind of TV address, it was in prime time. It was like a national emergency. And I thought all of that was good. And it's interesting to me that even again, just for the optics, I would have thought that the government and Netanyahu would feel that they do need at least to make a show of appearing to listen to the President and yes, offer an olive branch or talk about talks. But you're saying they've just gone full steam ahead.

B (6:47)

Well, I'll say two things about what you said. First of all, the content of what the President was trying to say was not only, guys, we need to try and find a solution, but also trying to present his own solution. I think a lot of people on the side of the protest didn't necessarily necessarily like some of the plans that he was suggesting or felt like he was too much in the pro Netanyahu Levine camp with some of the things he said. But I think it is important to say that he also said if this plan goes through the way it is written, then there is a serious danger to the democracy of the state of Israel. That's pretty important. No, there was a little bit of this kind of let's maybe freeze one part of the legislation and see what happens. But that was short lived and both sides are still very adamant on saying we, we're not going to sit down until, you know, first of all, the opposition is saying we're not going to sit down until you freeze the legislation. The other side is saying, guys, let's just sit down without the legislation being frozen. That's problematic, but that's where it is at this point.

A (7:44)

And so the demonstrators have not managed to penetrate or affect what's going affect what's going on inside. They're outside the gates, but not affecting as it stands what's going on inside. In terms of the sort of parliamentary procedure does this just now it's clear one hurdle. Does it just roll on to the next stage and the next stage.

B (8:04)

So first of all, yes, I mean what's going to happen on Monday is the notice this, the first part of the first stage of the plan is going through at first reading. The part that relates to the power the coalition will have over appointing judges and the part that says that the Supreme Court cannot touch basic laws. This will go through in first reading on Monday. But I think it is important to notice what happened this week, Jonathan, the equilibrium between the part of Israel that wants to go get this through and the part that doesn't. You're saying the protesters didn't change the legislative process or the cadence of it. But I think it's important to say I think Netanyahu is hitting more difficulties than he expected. It's not only the protests which are wide and vast and are going to continue into next week. It is the economic pressure, it is the international pressure, it's the internal pressure. There is a lot going on here that I'm not sure that he planned on. And when you add to that a lot of security issue related things that are happening in Israel anyway this week, creating more skirmishes in his coalition. I think it's harder for him than he expected, to be honest.

A (9:19)

Now we are going to do something completely different. We've never done this before on the podcast, but we are quite excited to do this and I think it's going to be very valuable.

B (9:27)

Yes, it was your idea, but it was a good one. It was a good one. Usually we have to say that. I don't know if it's because I'm Israeli and you're English, but when you have your ideas, usually my brain goes like, I don't know, I don't know. I always say to people that if Descalt was born Israeli, his cogito would be, I think, therefore you're wrong. So when you put up like this idea, I go, I don't know. But your idea was to, you know, throw out this prompt to our listeners if there are any questions they'd have about the judicial reform and the protests and what is going on and what will come next. And, and we got so many responses from our listeners who are. And really smart questions. I'm like, guys, you need smarter co hosts. But we'll try and answer the questions that you put in front of us. So let's start.

A (10:13)

Do you think let's plunge right in because there are some very, very good ones that we have. I mean, reflecting actually a lot of what people are thinking, I think so. Dana Westerman asked, are there any plausible compromises the coalition would consider with regards to their proposed judicial reforms that may appease dissenting voices? And actually, Gil asks, could the government call a referendum vote so that people can vote on this separately? So that, you know, I was wondering about that too, whether that could be a sort of olive branch. But let's go with Dana's question first. Is there any room for compromise here? That is essentially what the president, Isaac Herzog, was calling for. I've spoken to people who sort of say, you know, you can't compromise on something as fundamental as democracy. But what do you think, Yonit there? Is there any room for maneuver here, grounds for compromise between these two sides?

B (11:04)

We know that in this part of the plan, because there's a whole other part being planned. We'll get to that in a minute. But in this part of the plan, the plan that talks about the override clause overriding the Supreme Court in a majority with a majority of 61, and the part that talks about the politicizing of the Appointees Committee in the Knesset, the Justice Appointee Committee, those two issues are the heart of the matter now. Can you reach a compromise? Can, for example, the coalition say we're overriding the Supreme Court? Not with a majority of 61, which is the slimmest of majorities in the Knesset. Right. Every coalition has 61. Because the Knesset is 120 seats. Let's decide about an override clause of 65 or 70. Is that something that the opposition would agree to? Maybe. So that's an option. One example.

A (11:51)

Second example, just on that one, the so called supermajority idea. You know, it's familiar in the Senate, for example, if they want to override a presidential veto in the United States, they have to have 2/3, 66, 67 out of 100, is there anything else in Israel where a super majority is required? Does ever the Knesset say you've got to reach 70?

B (12:15)

Excellent question. There is one provision in one basic law that needs a super majority. It needs a supermajority of 80 members of Knesset. Do you want to guess what that is, by the way? Elections every four years. That is the only part of the Israeli Basic laws which are somewhat of a constitution that is enshrined with a supermajority. The rest, and that is the part of the issue, Jonathan, the rest. Can all, everything, all the basic laws can be changed with a majority. That is amazing.

A (12:45)

And that is part of it is. I mean, because they're constitutional, quasi constitutional, you would think they would have a higher threshold. But that 80 is really important because it means there is a precedent. It's not abnormal, it's not wholly abnormal for Israel to demand a super majority. To me, that's always been the obvious solution to this on that one point, because then it is of a different order. It can't be. Remember Tom Friedman was on our podcast saying what particularly riled him about these plans is their partisan nature. One party, one side changing the political rules, changing the rule book without the approval of the other side. If you make it 80 out of 120, well, instantly you're saying there has to be some degree of multipartisan, bipartisan consensus, right?

B (13:33)

So that is that part. The other part is the issue of the judges Appointee Committee in the Knesset. The coalition want a majority there. They don't have it today. Today there's an equilibrium between the judges and the coalition, or more accurately say judges and the politicians. The coalition wants a majority. I don't know if they can give that up. But if they can't give that up, then it's a non starter. So these are the main issues right now. But as I said, there's a whole bigger issue here of Netanyahu and Levine wanting to weaken the position of the Attorney General, to have to politicize the legal advisors in government ministries. So there is a whole big issue here. And what the leaders of the opposition, who are not the leaders of the protests, right. They're different groups. And the leaders of the protests are saying, just don't have these talks that are political talks. Have it with real experts, right? From whatever the Israeli Democracy Institute, other constitutional experts, sit down with them and make a decision. I'm not sure that Netanyahu wants this. He wanted the legislation very, very quickly. So you did ask something about referendum. We should Say Israel doesn't have.

A (14:35)

It wasn't, by the way. Sorry, it wasn't me. Was Gil, one of our listeners asked about a referendum.

B (14:39)

That's a very good question, Gil. It's the new Jonathan. Good question, Gil, about a referendum. Israel doesn't have the structure for a referendum. It never had one. And I think that in this case the coalition will be quite jittery at the option of trying to ask Israelis, first of all, because it seems in many polls that most of Israelis don't support this whole judicial overhaul as it is, even some of Netanyahu's voters. But also note From David Cameron, 2016, you know, referendums could go very, very wrong. So I don't know if this will, you know, reach the referendum points.

A (15:14)

Yes, no, I'm not, you know, not massively keen on referendums. The rule in this country always had been that you only use them for big constitutional change, that there's a higher bar that's required. So, for example, it's in my mind because, you know, the Scottish First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon announced she's quitting this week. But, you know, the creation of a Scottish Parliament had to be approved by a referendum. It's too big to just be the decision of the government of the day. And that's quite a good principle. Same with Brexit, you know, obvious example. So there would be some, you could imagine some, you know, grounding in saying these are constitutional changes. We'll have a referendum. As you say, they can go wrong.

B (15:56)

And I'm not going to go to referendum among our listeners and ask them who's their favorite co host of Unholy. Like, I wouldn't, I wouldn't, I wouldn't risk it. I'm just saying. Okay, so we're moving on to our next question. Randyham on Twitter asked us this, which is a really excellent question. If the past is the suggestions pass as proposed, what steps can be taken to undo it in the long and short term?

A (16:20)

Thank you, Randyham, for that because I have been wrestling with that myself a bit, thinking slightly defeatist. Okay, I'm going to assume this passes and then what? And is this the kind of thing where a new government could come in, even actually win election, seek election on a platform of undoing these changes and then could they do them? And I've thought about that. The difficulties of that are a few. One is if these changes go through, the chances of the opposition winning diminish because, for example, you would suddenly have the elections commission which makes decisions under the Supreme Court about Who's allowed to stand if it's in the hands of the politicians, ultimately via the Supreme Court, they could ban certain parties from standing at all, which the opposition would need to get to the numbers. I'm thinking particularly of Arab voters, Palestinian citizens of Israel, some 20%, etc. If they are excluded by a new elections commission that no longer recourse to, to the Supreme Court, the playing field becomes much less level for, you know, Yahil Lapid or the opposition to ever win. So that's one thing then. The other thing is the trouble with constitutional changes is you cannot do them in a sort of ping pong where one party gets in, make changes the rules, then the next party gets in, changes the rules. That is a recipe for instability. And also it relies on a very high opinion of human nature. Because if the trouble with these changes is they give enormous power to the Prime Minister of the day, is it plausible to envisage a Prime Minister Lapid coming in and saying, my first act is to reduce the amount of power I have. You know, there's a risk they wouldn't and they would suddenly see the merits of this system that allows them the Prime Minister to appoint all the judges and basically control the whole system. So I'm glad Randy raised it because I have wrestled with this myself. But you're the one who's there. Yoni, what are people saying about this?

B (18:24)

You touched all the right bases. I think you. I would just add two small comments to this. One is we are in this predicament in the first place because it's as easy as 61 to change the whole system in Israel, right? Every. If we said, and we said this again, I think it's important to reiterate. If every basic law can be changed with the majority of 61, then theoretically you change everything. Now next election, Yair Lapid becomes Prime Minister, let's say he changes it back with a majority of 61, right? Unless in this compromise discussion that both sides are supposed to be having, they actually write in finally the basic law legislation and then say, wait a minute, maybe it makes more sense in Israel that when you change basic laws, as we said, you need a super majority and then you're going to have a different balance of power. So theoretically this can be changed rather easily. Another point you should look at very carefully is that if this plan goes through at its second and third reading, the High Court of Justice in Israel can decide that it is an unconstitutional constitutional amendment. And that throws us into a whole different, really uncharted territories of a crisis. But that is also a very, very plausible possibility.

A (19:37)

And that would actually be the definition of a constitutional crisis, which is often people think it's a crisis about the Constitution. Constitutional crisis means when one part of government is at loggerheads with another part of government, and they cannot it's resolve it. It's irresistible force meets immovable object. And it's an argument about power and jurisdiction. And that's exactly what we would be into there. All right, so let's go to another one. Enav Tzach asks, what role does the internal chaos play in the increasing security threats? Is there a chance Israel's enemies are taking advantage of its internal weakness, I suppose, current internal weakness, to damage it? What about that, Yoni? Is that a thing that people are thinking while we're fighting each other? Israel's enemies outside its borders, maybe including on the occupied territories, are thinking there's a moment here to seize.

B (20:34)

Well, first of all, I'll just make a brief note of the fact that while all this is happening, even this week, reality doesn't stop. Reality isn't waiting for the coalition or opposition position to get it together.

A (20:44)

Right.

B (20:44)

We saw two terror attacks Friday in Jerusalem. Three dead, including two small brothers. We also saw an attack in Shoafat. This is all happening, including the coalition fighting amongst themselves because of the decision to evacuate a vineyard in Binyamin. Like, this is all still happening. So I think that the question is really relevant. What can happen? Are Israel's enemies looking particularly to this area? Look, first of all, it could go both ways, right? In times when either Hamas or Hezbollah tried to test the Israeli public, I don't think that even if there were internal battles between Israelis and themselves, there was not a fight back and a pushback against these organizations. So that is one thing to say. I don't know. It seems like the only thing that can flare up, it's not a small thing, but what can flare up is the west bank, which could definitely happen. Hamas can decide because of their own timing and because of their own calculations to start a, you know, something that looks like a third intifada while Israel is busy elsewhere.

A (21:47)

Yeah, I mean, that's the. I think, again, this was the note that President Herzog was striking, which is almost, I felt, between the lines. He was saying, you know, our enemies cannot defeat us.

B (21:59)

The only people who say more than that, he was saying, I'm reading the intelligence reports and our enemies are happy. I see that in the intelligence reports that our enemies are gleeful at the fact that we are fighting each other. So that is to add to what you're saying.

A (22:14)

But it taps into a sort of historical nerve, doesn't it? This idea that Israeli can unite against others. But you know, there are those who refer to Israel now as the third Jewish state, that in the sort of pre modern era there were earlier iterations of Jewish independence and they were undone by internal dissension. It was the Jews fighting each other, brother against brother that undid previous attempts at Jewish sovereignty. And the, you know, the big sort of biblical historic sweep says it's not the threat across the border that undoes the Jews, it is the threat from within when Jews fight each other. And that's. I felt that was the sort of, you know, nerve that is being struck there. But of course this is a different angle, which is yes, the enemies outside the gates delight in the turmoil within. And that's something of that that's going on.

B (23:09)

Well, you elegantly brought us a question that actually when I saw it I was like, that's a good question for Jonathan, someone who really thought about it pretty well. This is Shimon Sorek who wrote us. We should mention to our listeners that Jonathan has another podcast. We don't like it, but that's just the way it is. Two other podcasts actually, but nevermind. Anyway, so one of them is called the Longview on BBC4. Do you want to explain about it it a little bit, Jonathan, or should I being.

A (23:35)

No, that's okay. It's a bit, It's a, it's a. I think of it. I'm so old fashioned. I think of it as a radio show.

B (23:40)

I thought of that.

A (23:40)

It's on the radio. Before it was a podcast but it's on, it's on BBC Radio 4. And it's the idea of the long views. We take something going on now we did one this week, for example, about the spring offensive that is anticipated in Ukraine and we find a historical precedent for it. So we talked about the spring offensive in the First World War of 1980 and also in the, in the wars between England and France in 1356 there was a spring offensive. And so that's what we do. We take something going on now and find historical precedents for it.

B (24:13)

So that's why Szymon was asking if this was an episode of the Long View podcast, what historical period would you compare what's happening in Israel right now to? It's a good question.

A (24:25)

It certainly. It's a really good question and I've struggled with it actually. I mean, partly well I mean, in a way that there's the thing I mentioned before about, you know, Jews fighting each other in previous attempts at, you know, the earlier Jewish attempts at sovereignty undone by internal dissension. But on the particular point of attacks on judges, I was, I found myself going back a bit because America was, came to my mind with Andrew Jackson, the 19th century president who, who got himself into exactly that kind of constitutional clash with the Supreme Court of his day and against the Chief justice of the Supreme Court. It was a case involving Native Americans or First Americans, the Cherokee Nation. And the ruling went against the President. And the Chief Justice, John Marshall gave that ruling. And Andrew Jackson famously said, john Marshall has made his decision now let him enforce it. In other words, he's got no power. I'm in charge here. The, as president rather than the court. And you know, this parallel came up again in recent years when Donald Trump was attacking or at odds with the judges and trying to attack individual judges, saying they had no credibility. And it was significant because, you know, Donald Trump had a portrait of Andrew Jackson hanging in his office. That was one example. From the other side there was, you know, Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court. He had a plan rather to expand the Supreme Court and pack it with sympathetic judges to get through his New deal in the 1930s. You know, it didn't materialize, but that was one of those moments. So these things, these moments have happened. I think this is of a different order because it's not about just sort of at log heads with judges. He's, he's proposing essentially to make them, gut them of their power and make them his creatures and his appointees that.

B (26:18)

You know, of all, in all instances, we should say it's not only the Supreme Court, it's so the coalition will have power to appoint judges on all instances, all the way down. So that's 100 judges a year. Just to understand what we're talking about.

A (26:31)

Here, which is huge power grab. I mean, you know, in the United States case there was always a restraint because, yeah, the president might want to do that, that, but the Senate would be in different hands. They have a role in ratifying. It's just not like that in the Israeli system. Because if you are prime minister, we've said it before, that means automatically, by definition, you have a majority in the legislature in the Knesset.

B (26:53)

Listen, comparing Jackson to Netanyahu, I mean, Jackson's on the money, man. What does that mean? Just saying.

A (26:58)

Yes, that's true. He is on the money. No, I was just going to round off and say if we were doing a long view, but it would be very provocative if we did it, it, we would go much more recently and say, look, the last place that really has been doing this is, I'm afraid, and I think some of our guests have been saying this in recent weeks. You know, you look to Hungary and Viktor Orban and that attempt to say the judges are under me. That's where you'd be looking. And of course you would be looking. And again, one has to be really tread carefully. But totalitarian regimes in the 20th century, one of their things was to essentially put the courts under the control of the, of the government of the day. So this is a, the precedents are not good. Even though Andrew Jackson ended up on, on what is it? Is it $20 bill?

B (27:44)

An Israeli and English man trying to talk about what's on the bill on the American bill. I think it's on the 20.

A (27:48)

I don't remember.

B (27:49)

I think it's on the 20, but we'll check.

A (27:51)

But anyway, the presidents are not great.

B (27:52)

Still did not get the answer. Which podcast you like best? Well, we're going to put that to a referential. Neates was asking.

A (28:01)

Yes, that would be very funny if you created a little pseudonym. That's right. What would it be?

B (28:08)

Ittledove ittle Dove askstittlettle Dove wants to.

A (28:13)

Know who's your favorite. That'd be very good.

B (28:16)

So next questions. Can we get back to business about Israeli democracy and where are we heading? No, you should ask the next one. You should ask.

A (28:23)

I will, I will ask the next question because there are lots that are good. Ome asked, what advice do you have for Israelis seriously considering leaving the country? That's a big one. And I think some of our listeners have sort of intimated these thoughts around the kitchen table in other messages. What do you think, Yoni?

B (28:43)

Well, obviously this is pertaining to the part of the Israeli society that lost the elections. Right. And, and I told you it felt after the Israeli elections that for that part of the population, I kind of compared it to whether the American, the liberal part of the American political map felt after 2016. Right. What advice to Israelis thinking about leaving the country? Don't. This is a moment where you matter. This is a moment where every Israeli matters. Right? I mean, nations are tested and people are tested and at these moments, they decide who they are and who they want to be and what their country needs to be. And that kind of moment, it's not pleasant. It doesn't feel great. You really feel like there are Two Israels that are clashing between them and almost no point of agreement. But it matters, right? It's important. And whatever you think about this, either you think this is going to destroy democracy, then step up and protest. And if you think this is important and could actually put the balance back into the system, then say that and try and convince everyone around you. But if you especially worry about how to keep this country together, because if there's one thing that keeps us together is our solidarity or some sort of connection between all of the parts. So I think that this is. Would be the worst moment to, you know, this isn't such an important and historic junction. I don't know where it's leading. I'm sorry if I'm sounding like a pamphlet for a second, but this is when it matters to be a citizen of a country. I'm, you know, I'm worried about the economic ramifications, I'm worried about the societal ramifications. Everyone is worried. But. But that is when it's important to be a citizen of a country, not when it's easy. I mean, we mentioned Andrew Jackson. No one knows if Zachary Taylor was a good American president because he was never tested. Abe Lincoln was tested, and we know he was great. So that is, you know, when you. I'm gonna stop now. I sound like I should stop, but that is what I was trying to say.

A (30:47)

No, I find that affecting and I think people will be moved by that, actually by what you've said. And it's a kind of stay and.

B (30:56)

Fight message and whatever your politics are. But I'm a fight, of course, not really fights metaphorically, but, you know, stay in and stand your ground and say what's important to you. Yes, this is the moment when it matters. This is a critical junction in the history of this country.

A (31:12)

There's an equivalent conversation going on around, as it were, the Friday night dinner table in the Diaspora. And that is, should we somehow walk away from Israel if Israel goes down this path? Is this the breaking point where we've defended so much over the years? You know, but is this the thing we could not defend if Israel does go full Orban, which is how I hear it often framed. And, you know, there was a poll, for example, in the Jewish news newspaper in this country, conducted even before the judicial reforms came through, but saying just when the government was taking shape and, you know, the presence of Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich and the others, and, you know, 52% telling this opinion poll that this the Change in this government impacted, affected their view, their feelings about Israel. And so the, you know, and that will. I think it's just a matter. It's just obvious that if they were to poll that now, that number would be worse because that poll was done, you know, before you really even knew the scale of what was planned. And that discussion is going on, and there are equivalent answers to the answers you offer, which is, okay, so what can be done about it? I mean, is there anything that can be said from outside, you know, by Israel's friends? And they worry about that. And in a way, I think the, the course of action that people are really worried about is the walking away. Not that it will be some big, loud, noisy protest, because actually that suggests people still care about Israel, they're still engaged. I think what they're concerned about is if Israel really does insist on going down this path, you will see a new and younger generation just drifting away. And it will be a slow puncture rather than an explosion. It will just be bit by bit. Jews around the world have less and less affinity for and connection with Israel. And so it's not as dramatic as people leaving the country. Instead, it's a kind of. Of opting out. I would argue against that because I would say you've got to stay engaged. You know, the Jews only have one country in the world, and you've got to wrestle with it somehow to make it the country you want it to be and that it has the potential to be. That's how I would see it. But the question raised by Ome, you know, it's a live one for Israelis. I think there's an equivalent one, indeed, going on around the Jewish world.

B (33:38)

Right. And if you're worried about Israel and you think that this reform is the wrong thing, then look at the people who are protesting and stand with them. That is the answer to, I think, part of the answer of the Diaspora question. But that is more for you to answer as you have. I would connect this. And we had several questions about the political situation which Benjamin Netanyahu is in. There's a question about, I think it was from Charles Whipp, who asked, is Netanyahu using the reforms as a way to get a liberal party like Yeshatid or Blue and Whites to join the coalition on condition of stopping the reform or placing the religious parties that way? That's a really good question, because obviously this is Israel. So everything is happening all at once, right? I mean, there's this judicial reform, there's security issues that we're Related to. There's a lot of politics here. And, and the question whether this whole thing is like a plan to bring in, eventually bring in Benny Gantz or someone from the moderate side. Look, Netanyahu, I think a lot is closing in on Netanyahu. Look, from his perspective, he chose uncomfortable and rather unruly bedfellows to build this coalition with. Maybe because he didn't really have a choice, but also because he wanted to pass this judicial reform, he thought he could do it as quickly as possible. I am saying again, I think that the international pressure, the economic pressure, financial pressure, and the internal pressure of the protest is a lot that he didn't expect. And on the other hand, right, he needs these, these, these coalition partners. But in everything else, right, that might happen, any sort of flare up that could happen because Itamar Bengville decides to do something or Bezales Motlic decides to do something. And these are people who have their own ideologies. And then Netanyahu is stuck, right? So there's this scenario in political circles that say something might happen, something like a flare up or a conflict with Hamas, the West bank, whatever, and then the call from the public will be, you have to have a coalition that is, you know, that, that represents Israel better than this far right coalition. And then some sort of change. Look, I don't know how this happens because first of all, you know, Benny Gantz has to agree to parts of the judicial overhaul. I don't know if he can. That's a big question. And the interesting thing is that it's only not only by political analysts. Look at the fact that Bezaris Moltic agreed to be finance minister in rotation for two years. I remind you, who agrees to be a finance minister for two years if the coalition is supposed to survive for four years, Right? So everyone has this feeling like this makeup of the coalition might not be the final one. It could be. I just don't think that the judicial revolution is the smokescreen for a political change. Rather a little bit the other way around. I mean, the most important thing for Netanyahu is the judicial overhaul. Whatever happens after can happen. But again, he's keeping his eye on the ball.

A (36:28)

Yeah, that makes complete sense to me. Partly just the time. If this was all just a ruse to get the others in, that would have happened almost by now. There's been all the pressure. If this is how Netanyahu wanted to play, he could say, wow, this is impossible. The country's too divided. You know, I'm gonna have to bring other people in, in this kind of national unity moment. This is an emergency. Etc. The fact he hasn't done that now makes me think, yeah, as you say, this isn't the motive behind it. And also, there is a bottom line. I know there were people who, for, you know, legitimate reasons, as they would see them, I wouldn't see them, but they would see them, have wanted to have judicial reform for a long while. But you cannot exclude from the picture Netanyahu's own personal need, which is to get himself off that hook. He is on that hook of three corruption charges, ongoing trial, and therefore any other newcomer to the government would have to say, yes, I will back you on that. And if they don't, I don't see him breaking up this coalition. He needs the coalition that allows him to stay in power. I think our listeners have provided some fantastic questions and absolutely confirmed our impression of them that they are the smartest and most interesting podcast listeners out there. All of those questions, really fantastic. There were many, many others we couldn't get to. So apologies for that because Jonathan thought.

B (37:51)

About this great idea at the last moment. But next time we're going to give you some more time and then we'll bring in some more questions.

A (37:59)

Yes, it's not true to say that we were actually negotiating this while the halftime break was happening between Arsenal and Manchester City, but it's not far off that. So, yes, we will give you even more advance warning next time. But listen, thank you very much to everybody who wrote in and for coming through. Those are really fascinating, fascinating questions.

B (38:25)

Okay. We promised we were going to talk about super bowl and super bowl ads, and I promised an original angle. So that's all. I'm throwing the ball to you, man. You take it from here.

A (38:34)

You are in a classic American football style pass downfield. You are throwing the ball to me. I love this because this is where unholy and our very unique view of the world because everyone has been talking about the super bowl and about Rihanna's outfit and the costume and the fact of the way the the Kansas City Chiefs won at the last moment, etc. But we are going to go for a very different angle because there was one ad in particular that caught our eye and it was the slogan for it was he gets us. And it showed, you know, very moody black and white stories showing, you know, overwhelmed hospitals and tired healthcare workers. And then the message comes up, you know, Jesus felt heartbreak, too. He gets us, all of us. And these are very sort of beautifully put together, beautifully produced. Ads. And it's part of a campaign, the he gets us campaign. And it's been. Our friends at the Forward described it as a liberal makeover for Christianity. And others have said this is essentially a. An effort to rebrand Jesus, that Jesus is getting a rebrand featuring, you know, black and white pictures, beautifully shot and emotional music, stirring music, etc. Part of a. And these ads alone, by the way, these. To run two ads during the super bowl would have cost the people behind it some $20 million. And all part of an attempt to. Yeah, make Jesus get a new image for a new generation, perhaps because they are sort of. They're very social media friendly. They will go down well with young people. The bit that leapt out at me though, in all the commentary was why do you need to advertise Jesus in America? You know, this is a product that's already pretty popular, you would think. But here's the thing. The numbers, according to the Pew survey, which is the sort of gold standard survey page, particularly of sort of religious affiliation, says that in 1972, 90% of Americans identified themselves as Christian. And now in 2020, that figure had come down to just 64%. I mean, that is a big drop in, you know, two, what, I suppose two generations. And a recent Pew survey said that on the current projection, fewer than half of Americans might be Christian before another 50 years have passed. I think this is a big subject.

B (41:03)

For us and we should say that the rest are not. Or what happens is that a lot of people are saying we're not affiliated. Like that is what is happening. People are again becoming less and less religious. By the way, am I mistaken? This also happens in the Jewish community in the United States. The stats are all so similar, I mean, that there are less and less. They say we're not affiliated.

A (41:24)

That is right. So what type? Yeah, the numbers. Who. And it's difficult because obviously the measure is often religion specifically and how religious people are. And of course, it's very possible for people to identify strongly Jewish, but not as religion. But that is a very interesting story too, because if you identify yourself as Jewish by religion as opposed to having no religion, it's a steady. The demographic picture is very clear that among, you know, 65 and over, it's 84% say they have religion. But you go down a notch, it's 81. Then down 1 more by age group to 30 to 49 year olds, it's 67. Until you get to the youngest group of Jews, 18 to 29 year olds, only 60% say they are Jewish by religion. 40% of young American Jews, according to Pew, say they are Jews of no religion. Now, again, that doesn't mean they aren't strongly Jewish, but it does suggest there is that sort of decline in religious affiliation. And sometimes that can map on to how strongly people identify at all. But the question I think for us to tackle on this podcast, not now, I think we should do this in a. In a different, you know, in a future podcast, we'll get a very brainy guest in to talk about what does it do to American Jews to be in a society that is less Christian, that is less religious? I mean, America has for long been the most churched, as in houses of worship per head of population of any western country anywhere. If that is declining, what place does that leave for Jews? Do they themselves identify in a different way? Not as religious or as something else altogether? Is it a less hospitable environment for Jews in a way? Lots to talk about. I just thought that super bowl ad points to some kind of trend and.

B (43:11)

A connection to Israel as well. Right? Because if it's like less Christian than you're less connected to the Holy Land as such. I mean, that's also an aspect that we can talk about with our brainy guest. But also, you know that because the situation has already been created in which religion and conservatism walk together hand in hand in Israel and the United States. Right. And liberals feel maybe detached, want to be detached from religion. How does that change the political map? How does that change, you know, the relationship vis a vis, again, Jews and Israel? Really interesting topic. So what you just did is bring us the ice cream, talk about it for two minutes, and then take the ice cream away. That's okay. That's okay.

A (43:47)

I have done that. I also just think, what kind of people are we when people, other people are watching the super bowl and thinking, I really like what Rihanna's wearing or it's a shame the Eagles didn't win. And the takeaway you and I have is declining religious affiliation in the United States. If you are a nerd, you should feel very at home.

B (44:06)

Very welcome indeed.

A (44:08)

Very welcome. The door is always open to you. Now we should do some award distribution. We should. I was taken for our chutzpah choice by a story out of the United States, which I know, and you know, specifically the United States Congress, which is the gift that keeps on giving. I know when it comes to, you know, chutzpah, but there is just such a choice example to light upon, and that is you know, we've talked before, I think about George Santos, the Republican elected Congressman from Long island, who had at the very least embellished his life story suggestion that he had actually made up fabricated huge parts of his story, including the notion that he was descended from Jews and specifically Holocaust survivors. Well, well, not to be outdone, prepare and brace for the story of Anna Paulina Luna, who is another congresswoman from Florida, also just newly elected. She is again, somebody who impressed in her Florida district with a very moving backstory involving, you know, a hardscrabble, harrowing childhood that left her battle hardened, etc. With a single moment. Latina. A very affecting story. Members of her own family have come forward to say that there is much in here that is to be doubted, but the key bit is that she had also spoken of a Jewish background and her own uncle has stepped forward to say not so fast. Actually, the congresswoman's grandfather kind of was connected to the events of the Second World War, but not in the way she would have wanted because it turns out he produced, produced a photograph that suggests that her grandfather, one Heinrich Meyerhofer, was actually a member of the Wehrmacht, the armed forces of Nazi Germany. And there is a photograph of him in that uniform. In other words, our Chutzpah of the Week nominee, or mine at least, is for somebody who said they were a Jew. But instead, the family history points rather in the other direction.

B (46:22)

Not only did she say she has a Jewish heritage, which she didn't, but actually there was a Nazi heritage. I mean, this is, this isn't just your run of the mill chutzpah. This is grand scale. This is like mega chutzpah. I think we should have a new category for mega chutzpah. Look, I mean, I'm not trying to compete. Like I can throw in a little story just because my story is, is also very textbook chutzpah. But I'm, I, you know, I'm, I, I don't know if I could compete with that. But I'll mention, just mention a member of Knesset from the Liku. I'm sorry, he was just appointed minister in the Ministry of Justice. Dudiam Salem David am Salem, who has his, how shall we say it, own style. And he spoke this week against the protesters and of course they are the elite and he said about them, most of us, right, work in your houses and clean your gardens. I saw the protests and I saw many shiny things. I later understood it was Rolex watches of the protesters. Look at all the Mercedes cars out There, this was how he was berating. He said, you know, other things, but that was how he was berating the protesters. While he was doing this he was wearing his own Cartier watch, which is why this story is great chutzpah. He later explained that this was an inheritance from his brother. But you know, I mean look, if you're gonna berate protesters for being rich elitists, which they're not, but doesn't matter, like maybe don't wear your expensive watch in the same day, you're gonna do that. Just mental notes.

A (47:49)

It's a fantastic one. It's man tells crowd they are all Philharmonia listeners as he has his season ticket to the philharmonic orchestra. Now I think the Cartier watch guy berating the Rolex guy is fantastic. I think both of them, both of our nominees this week are the dictionary definition of chutzpah. You know we often say that the word is misunderstood. We talked about it with Mah Malcolm Gladwell in a previous episode. We have come up with some two banging textbook cases. I think we've done very, very well. We should speak of happier things. With a mention indeed.

B (48:23)

So the mention of the week is I think an unequivocal choice, like we don't have any other options. It's someone that I should say I know well and I think many Israelis do too. Mention the week is a story about one of our Israel's most high profile reporters. I'm talking about Yair Sherki. Yair is our religious affairs correspond correspondent. He's the religious affairs correspondent on Channel 12, a very senior part of our political desk. I can say from, you know, at firsthand attest that he's also an incredibly compassionate colleague and friend and a decent and deep thinking journalist. Now his bio is very relevant to the story so I'll just mention that Yair comes from a very well respected national religious family. His father is a prominent rabbi in Jerusalem's national religious country community. On Tuesday this week, Yair came out as gay. On a beautifully written post, full of compassion and pain, he said I love men and I love God. And this is neither contradictory nor new. And he go on, you know, he, he goes on to explain that he's writing these words. I'm quoting him not because I have the strength to write, but because I don't have the strength to be quiet. He says, I know people I love will be saddened by this, this but I hope you will find the place in your soul that allows you to discuss the truth. Now before I Talk about what? The reaction that this sort of. The reaction that poured in, I will mention. Just think about it, Jonathan, right? The young religious boy or girl that is wrestling with these questions. And having someone who's so prominent and be so brave and do this step is so powerful. But also, we should mention that when you're in a religious Zionist community and there's a party in Israel called Religious Zionism, Hatzionuta datit. Right. And they talk about things like bizarre smotic who stands at the head of that party, talks about being a proud homophobe, and suddenly you have this young man who's at 30 and he sounds like the more authentic voice of the religious Zionists in Israel. Now, why am I telling you this whole story? Because we talked most of this episode about this clash of what feels like this clash between two Israels, and nothing connects them. Well, Yair Shayrki connected them this week because all of the outpouring of emot that came out from both sides, I mean, obviously there were a lot of people on the liberal Tel Avivian side, you know, hugging him and saying this, but also people from the Likud people from otsmayehudit, right? Itamarben Gvil's party. And there was a minister there who sent his sympathy. And you suddenly have this moment, by the way, ironically, on the most vitriolic platform of all, Twitter, right, You find you have this moment where everyone is coming together. I know this is an extreme example. It kind of reminded me of those Christmas carols sung by the German soldiers and the English soldiers in the trench warfare in World War I. But suddenly everything was quiet and everyone was supporting this young man who did this really brave thing. And it was a beautiful moment. And that's why I will give him the Mensch award, because I don't think anyone comes close this week.

A (51:18)

A very worthy winner. I mean, just on. On the point about him being of faith, it interests me because there are cases outside here in the ultra Orthodox community of people coming out, but it's almost assumed when they do, they will leave Orthodoxy.

B (51:34)

And he does not have a plan to do that. He said, like I. There are people who've been wrestling with this and say either God doesn't exist or homosexuality doesn't exist. I know for a fact he wrote that they both exist. Like, there's no plan. It doesn't sound like, to me, like there's any plan for him to leave this community that he's a part of.

A (51:53)

Yeah, yeah. Now that's a really big change. And progress is that he might be a harbinger for so a mention of the week for him. Our thanks. A special thanks I'm going to say this week to all of you, the listeners who did respond to our call out on multiple platforms. We are so grateful to you for that. So if you want to go back to those platforms to see what we're up to, you can, you can actually see the questions as they were left from your fellow listeners. Nholypodcast on Instagram and on Facebook. We're there. We are very, very grateful for that.

B (52:29)

And we will also add a special thank you to Dr. Emil Fuchs of the Israeli Democracy Institute. And our usual thank yous to our fantastic team, Gaia Glaser, Omer Primatorom, Atik and Yair Bashan. You will see me next week, Jonathan. No choice in the matter. You'll just have to.

A (52:45)

No, I'm looking forward to it. And there will have been an Arsenal game between now and then. So for your sake, I hope it goes well. So for the, for this, for my mood and spirits. But we will see each other then.

B (52:55)

We will.

A (53:02)

This podcast is brought to you by Cyber Attacks can be prevented Checkpoint. You deserve the best security.