ISRAEL'S JUDICIAL REFORMS IN A NUTSHELL: 1. Currently all judges are appointed by a committee controlled by the judges themselves. Reform would increase Knesset representation on com'tt - so not the US system of judges picked completely by elected officials, but in the direction 2. Supermajority for striking down legislation a sound idea since Court not doing it pursuant to a constitution adopted by a supermajority. SCOTUS can override democratic majority in name of Constitution's own supermajority. In Israel, SupCt just picking its favorite dem majority

CORRECTIONS NEEDED for @washingtonpost @shira_rubin story on Israel's proposed immigration reform. Major factual inaccuracies. I will list a number of them in this thread. (1/6) washingtonpost.com/world/2022/12/… Article says reform would make someone with a Jewish father but no Jewish mother ineligible for aliyah. Not true. All children of Jews would remain eligible. (2/6) See here for background fhttps://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-3-myths-behind-opposing-the-grandparent-clause-reform/

On recently published UNHRC blacklist: 1) There is absolutely no prohibition in international law from doing business in occupied or disputed territories. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
2) Everyone knows this. Even the most progressive governments don ban their firms from such business. 3) The UNHRC knows there is no rule against such business activity. As @KoheletForum has shown, many leading multinationals do massive business in occupied territories around the world, but UNHRC has not thought to blacklist them. en.kohelet.org.il/publication/wh…

THREAD: Why @SecPompeo is right to say settlements not illegal.
1) The 1978 memo's conclusion depended on the view that Israel is an occupying power. That view was wrong at the time, because one cannot occupy territory to which one has a sovereign claim. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf… 2) Even on its own terms, memo's conclusions no longer apply. It said the state of occupation, and with it Qs about settlements, would end when peace treaties signed w/ Jordan. That happened in '94; State Dept just failed to update policy to reflect changes on the ground

THREAD on the EJC decision re Israel product labelling:
1) Its as bad as was expected by observers, including myself. The Court affirms the EU's unique labelling policy that only applies to Israeli products. Reupping my analysis when policy first adopted nytimes.com/2015/11/13/opi… 2) The most glaring aspect of EU's decision is that is says consumers have right to know if a product made in occupied territories or where serious int'l law problems exist. But EU does not req "Made in Moroccan Settlements" labels, or any other such labels anywhere in the world

As someone one who has argued that Israel should admit Omar & Tlaib - not out of some false demand of "openness" but to avoid opportunity for Dems to use their barring as a pretext to slam Israel, I must also say that decision to bar them is legitimate and understandable (THREAD) Countries routinely deny visas to those with extremist views. The US excludes people for ideologies fundamentally hostile to US (ie communism); the UK and others deny entry to public figures with bigoted views as being "not conducive to the public good." Omar/Tlaib qualify.

Irish bill on "occupied territories," likely to pass upper house today, is a travesty in many ways, but a teaching moment as well. It shows criticism of Israel re settlements not about int'l law at all, just uses that as an epithet. 2) The bill adopts unique definition of "occupied territories" that applies only to Israel, excludes WSahara, Crimea, NCyprus, etc. Authors care so little about int'l law they're happy to legitimize those occupations to reduce political cost of beating up on Israel.