 Hi, so I have a couple of questions. I'll start with one of them, seeing that I'm also from Israel originally. It's what's going on right now in Israel. It's quite disturbing. And I thought that some of the legal reform that's been tried since already a few months, some of them actually made sense. And I saw one of your show that was, I was glad that we had the very similar opinion that some of them made sense and some of them not. And finally, with all the protests, they are now going as one by one, if at all. And now that they're going on these reasonable cause or whatever to call it, I thought that it's made sense because it's what they try to cut is the political involvement of the court, not legal. So legally, the court, if the government decide to do something against human rights or the rights of citizen, the Supreme Court still have the same. But politically, they cannot get involved in who to put as a minister or some political decision, which I think makes sense. And to my knowledge, there's no country in the world that have this kind of crazy clause. But in the last episode that I saw a couple of few days ago, you kind of mentioned, so I was not sure what is the reasoning because I see logic in what they're doing. So the fundamental problem in Israel is, there is no right solution here because there is no constitution. There is no fundamental standard by which they evaluate. There's no standard of individual rights. There's no standard of, so they have this reasonableness standard. But that's completely subjective. It's not well defined. And when the court has been, and the court has been over the last 20 years, very left, reasonableness for a left wing court is very different than what it is maybe the rest of Israelis and so on. So I can completely understand the motivation of getting rid of it. The problem is that my understanding, and maybe I'm missing something, in my understanding is by getting rid of this, you are basically making impossible for the court to decide that a law, not just an appointment, but a law is unreasonable. That is, it violates the basic law, or it is so, again, it's not anti-constitutional because there is no constitution. This is the problem. There's no standard. So the challenge is you can't really reform the system in any kind of reasonable way without asking the fundamental questions of why do we have a court system, a Supreme Court in particular, and what oversight does it have over the government and over the parliament? What are the boundaries of that power? How do we figure that out? So these are little band-aids that have the potential to do more harm than good, and it depends on how they're interpreted and how they're used and by whom they used. I think the last thing that stimulated this was the governor that appointed as a minister, a guy who had been, if I remember right, you know, found guilty of fraud on a number of occasions from the political party shots, an ultra-orthodox political party, and the Supreme Court said, look, it's not reasonable to put somebody in the government as a minister in the government who has committed fraud. First, what I understood again, and I saw some showing Israel that they were actually showing that the Supreme Court has different ways for, again, if it's infringed on the citizen or the human rights. So they do have it and we still have it about this minister, which I know what you're talking about. Again, as much as ethically is wrong, and I agree, but if legally it's okay, the Supreme Court cannot say, don't take this minister because as long as there's no legal law that forbids a minister to serve, it's not their business. First, have a law, then follow it because their job is to interpret and protect the rights of their citizens. So I agree with that. So if the law, if what they're trying to pass right now is limited to that extent, that is it just applies to these political issues, then fine, then the government should do it and I'm not sure what the protests about. I mean, the protests have taken on a life of themselves. I mean, there's a dynamic of that. But I mean, the protests also worried about the slippery slope that passed this one, we don't do anything, then they'll pass another one because they think they won't do anything, which is probably true. I mean, this is probably a test balloon. If it passes, Netanyahu is going to try to do other ones. He wants to see what the response is. And look, I don't think Netanyahu wants any of this. This is all just because he promised his coalition partners who are pretty bad. So yeah, I don't disagree with you that this particular law probably isn't as bad as it seems. It's the package that is problematic. I don't know if you know, but I actually debated the guy from the Knesset, from the Israeli parliament who heads up the legal commission. Yeah, Rotman. Rosemann, I debated him in Israel. I didn't see it. I was looking for it, but I couldn't find it. I was really curious to see it. Somewhere up. I'll have to ask Boaz if he's got it up. But anyway, what was interesting was, I said things like, I agree that the way judges are pointed in Israel right now is completely arbitrary and it doesn't make any sense. And so why not have the entire parliament vote just like in the United States? Have them come and interview the nominee and have them vote just like in the U.S. they vote rather than this committee which is now going to be tilted towards the government. The government gets complete control. Make it a parliamentary thing. Yeah, but the parliamentary, sorry, the parliamentary will be worse. Nobody will accept it because whoever has the coalition has the vote. So imagine the protest that will go. Yeah, but that's what happens in the U.S. right? Right, right. And in Canada as well. I mean Canada and it's the right way. I agree. You got to do it. I agree 100%. He said, yeah, but it's a mess, but it's better than the government, the executive branch in a sense, doing it unilaterally. At least you get parliamentary discussion and debate. And he said, yes, you're right, you're wrong. And then I said, it's ridiculous that the Supreme Court cannot overturn laws that you pass. And he started to say that in America, that's the case. And I said, you don't know what you're talking about, right? The Supreme Court can and does all the time. But there was a number of things that he actually agreed with me on. And I said to him, so why don't you propose those things? And he rolled his eyes in the coalition. He can't get everything he wants. But yeah, it's Israel's a mess. And as I've said many times, this is all just a, the real issue is what kind of state should Israel be? Should it be a Jewish state or a state for Jews? And until that is settled, this is going to end constitution. Yes. And you need a constitution to formalize it and put it into writing. And you won't get that because you'd have to come to a conclusion about the world of religion in the state. And there's no way that will happen in Israel. Right. Okay. Thanks.