 And its official Israel's 37th government has been approved with a vote of no confidence. Joining me here in studio is attorney Ran Bar Yoshafat, political commentator and legal expert and professor Yossi Yonah, former Israeli parliament member for the Labour Party and Alison Kaplan, summer journalist at Israeli Daily Paper Haritz. Thank you all for staying with me here in studio. I want to get your legal expertise on some of these coalition agreements with the Religious Zionism Party, specifically the High Court override and what majority will be necessary for that to go through? Very happy that they're going to push that. I'm not that optimistic, but I hope that they're going to push this. I think that the question is, do we have the same system like in America? In America you have a constitution, so the Supreme Court of America can say this law is not constitutional. In Israel we don't. We have a basic set of laws. So the far right-winger, Aaron Barak, I'm saying this sarcastically, said for one of the basic laws, let's have one clause that says if you disagree, you can overcommit, you can overrule. So the set of Israel wants to do the same now. The Knesset wants to do the same for human dignity and his freedom. I'm very supportive of it. I think it's a proper balance between the legislative branch and the judicial branch. The way I understand democracy is that you have the people, the people elect their representatives. You have the government and the Supreme Court. And I would argue in Israel they shifted a little bit so the Supreme Court is above everything else. I think it's not democratic. My test is this. Imagine they're going to nominate Avimovs, Ben Gvir, Smotrych, Ben Segupchen, all these are Supreme Court judges. Do you still want them to have the final words? If you're saying no, then you're just talking from position. I want to have a set of rules where I don't know if I'm the opposition or the coalition. I want to have a fair set of rules. Is it 61? I don't know. Maybe it should be 65. I'm open for a discussion. But to say that the Israeli parliament, in no majority, should not overcome a ruling of the Supreme Court. It's undemocratic. Basically it's saying that when you have a conflict of values, the entity that needs to have the final word is judges who are not elected by the public. Alison, I see you nodding. Is that agreement? Well, this was the tip of the spear, one of the most important things that this government wanted to push forward. It was in the press. It was announced. And there was a big pushback from the public against it. Every single law professor in Israel signed a letter, a huge number of the law professors I didn't count exactly, but I would say the majority pushed back. There has been polling done. This is not something that the public wants. And therefore, the government has already taken a step back and said that it is not going to move towards the override clause law being imposed in this Knesset session that they're pushing it towards the summer. So I think that there's already a recognition by the government that this is not a good idea. It is not going to look good when it comes to balance of powers and how Israel approaches democracy. But what's the argument? So you said a lot of professors, magically they're all left-wingers. They don't like this. Every single law professor is left-wingers. No, no, no. Those are against this clause. So I'm asking. There's a good argument. Yeah, so I'm asking what's the argument. The argument is this kind of balance. You know that. You write that there is this kind of inner tension between the democratic system and basic laws that cannot, you know, to put it that way, securing the right of some people. So you are very much afraid in certain historical circumstances that we'd use democracy, the vegetarian rule, right, to actually undermine basic rights of citizens, of minorities, stuff like that. So this is like when you're talking about liberal democracy. You want to limit the power, and one way or another, limit of democratic rule so that it would not undermine some basic rights of its citizens. I'm 100% with you, I would even crack it up a notch. I want to promote individual freedoms. I think that the government has a role of protecting individual freedoms. The question is how do you do it? And I want to ask you, what if you have 110 members of Knesset who want to promote a certain law? You still think when Israel does not have a constitution, the Supreme Court can overrule it? If you say yes, that's not democratic. Yeah, I know. I just want to interrupt you for one second. They are swearing in all the members of Knesset. We are seeing Benjamin Netanyahu, the new Prime Minister, coming up to the Knesset plenum. He will be speaking now. Take a listen. I, Benjamin Netanyahu, son of Sila and Ben Sion of blessed memory, pledge as Prime Minister to fulfill my role as Prime Minister and uphold the decisions of the Knesset. Minister Amichai Eliyahu, thank God, I, Amichai Eliyahu, son of Shmuel and Tovah, pledge as a member of the government to be faithful to the state of Israel and its laws and to fulfill my role as a member of the government and to uphold the decisions of the Knesset. Minister Ofir Akunis, I, Ofir Akunis, the son of Menachem and Mikhaela, pledge as a member of the government to be faithful to the state of Israel and its laws and to fulfill my role as a member of the government faithfully and to uphold the decisions of the Knesset. Minister Chaim Bitton, I, Chaim Bitton, Ben, the son of Rabbi Yehushua, the son of Yehushua and Sarah Rachel, pledge as a member of the government to be faithful to the state of Israel and its laws and to faithfully fulfill my role as a member of the government and uphold the decisions of the Knesset. And those are all the members of Knesset being sworn in to the 37th Israeli government. Turning back to our studio here, I want to ask you, Itama Ben Gavir has been pushing for the immunity of soldiers, which can jeopardize these soldiers abroad specifically when it comes to the Hague. I want to ask you, what are these potential consequences? Okay, so just to be accurate, you're potentially under threat in the Hague if no one investigates you, not if someone outside of the IDF investigates you. That's just legally the issue. So if the IDF does not investigate a soldier who have never heard of such an event, then you would have a problem. The IDF always investigates not because of a PR stunt because we care. Okay? And I think that this is beyond, this is bipartisan. People care and they want the IDF to be morally just. So the IDF does it. That's number one. I'm not sure if it's a great law, but I do think that I can say this as someone who serves a lot in the Army Reserves. I do feel that my soldiers are telling me, we feel restrained. We feel like the orders are extremely complicated and you need the rules of engagement to be very, very simple. And yes, sometimes I think soldiers don't feel that they have their back with a lot of support. It doesn't mean that I'm fully supportive of it. I want to see the details. If the details are going to be something that's just making soldiers with no responsibility, I will not support it. But in general, to have a saying that says we have your back, don't worry. I think it's a positive notion. Stupid one. Really, it's stupid one because it does open it to international loans. If the daily system doesn't take care of soldiers who misbehaving there. So that would be like really kind of, I don't know even how to describe it, how stupid it is that you're opening up yourself to some kind of fecusation, some kind of law suits against Israeli soldiers outside of the country. Now, this is the excuse would be that we have a judicial system that is taking care of such misbehaviors, such and such. But now we're saying, no, there's no, we're going to give up on the possibility of bringing soldiers, God forbid, if they're doing something wrong to the martial court. And you say, well, if that goes out of the window, we are on a deep S. I'm sorry, that's not a proposal as far as I'm concerned. That's not a legal case. The problem is this. If you have no legal system that makes sure that soldiers behave, then you are under international law. In Israel, we have the IDF itself, which is enough. And you also have the Supreme Court and other courts in Israel, which is another mechanism. In case someone feels that an IDF soldier has misbehaved and the IDF doesn't touch that, then you're allowed to go to Supreme Court in Israel. That's not what they're saying. You're saying is if the IDF is not going to investigate itself. That's a different story. I've never heard of any incident where the IDF doesn't investigate itself. No, but it is a judicial system. This is the question. They have the authority, you know, to sentence soldiers in case that they're misbehaving stuff like that. This is the one point. Another point that I want to stress is whether it is in accordance with what is actually unfolding in other countries. This is, I think, the right measure to examine this kind of suggestion. If it is not consistent, this is what you're going to face. If some, you know, the Hague or whatever, you know, international law, would say, well, look, you know, this is a kind of system. Even Yanoran is saying that, well, it's still there is the possibility of bringing soldiers to court, but it is not inconsistent. It is not, you know, with how things are being done internationally. Then you still have a big problem. I'm going to have to cut you off. We do have to go to a break. Ranbal, Yoshafat, I want to thank you very much for joining us.