Episode 413, The Andrew Parker Show - Israel’s Supreme Court, Democracy and the Rule of Law

In this compelling episode of The Andrew Parker Show, we dive deep into Israel’s judicial reform debate and what it means for the country’s democracy, rule of law, and political legitimacy.

Andrew Parker welcomes retired Minnesota Administrative Law Judge Eric Lipman, a respected Times of Israel blogger, to unpack the ongoing clash between Israel’s Supreme Court and the Knesset—and why the absence of a formal constitution fuels this crisis.

Judge Lipman explains how Israel’s Supreme Court can overrule the decisions of elected leaders based solely on its own “reasonableness” standard, why this differs dramatically from U.S. judicial norms, and how judicial reform could strengthen—not weaken—democracy in the one and only Jewish state.

We also address international recognition of a Palestinian state in the wake of the October 7 atrocities, the dangers of bypassing bilateral negotiations, and the troubling implications for Israel’s security and sovereignty.

Key topics include:

• The history and current status of Israel’s judicial reform movement
• Why Israel never adopted a constitution—and the consequences
• The Supreme Court’s self-appointed powers and “reasonableness” doctrine
• Potential solutions, including voter-approved basic laws and constitutional reform
• The risks of unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state after October 7
• Lessons from U.S. constitutional history and democratic principles

If you care about Israel, democracy, judicial integrity, and Middle East politics, this episode will give you insights you won’t hear anywhere else.

Transcript

Andrew Parker (00:02)

Welcome to another episode of the Andrew Parker show episode four hundred and thirteen. And ⁓ we enjoy having you with us. No doubt. We talk politics, Israel and the law each episode and go to the Andrew Parker show dot com. The Andrew Parker show dot com. You need to put the.

in front of Andrew Parker. Don't go too quickly to get to Andrew Parker. You need to have the in front of Andrew Parker and show at the end. And you'll get right to just a wonderful website and you can flitter around in there and learn a whole bunch of things, not just about me, which isn't so interesting, but much more about the episodes. Well over now, four hundred

episodes and let me since since I'm talking about this presently, let me recommend to you that you go to the Andrew Parker show.com. go to the episodes, you click on all episodes and you scroll back to July 23 and July 30, 2023.

July 23 and July 30, 2023.

During those two episodes, I was talking about, in large part, the progressive caucus here in the United States and its position that Israel is an apartheid state, is a racist state. And we talked about Isaac Herzog coming to a joint session of Congress.

at around that time and giving a stemwinder speech to the joint session, absolute beat down on the progressive caucuses view of who and what the state of Israel is. And it was such an important discussion. I did two episodes on it, July 23 and July 30 of 2023.

And in the July 30 episode, I framed up why Israel is perhaps the greatest democracy in the world. And it was a discussion surrounding the debate, heated debate over the judicial reform in the state of Israel. That debate, while it is now taking a back seat, no doubt.

to the war in Gaza and to the horrific atrocities visited upon the Jews and the state of Israel on October 7, 2023, just a few months after those two episodes. While it has taken a back seat, it has not gone. The judicial reforms in the state of Israel and those issues are not gone. And we are lucky enough today on episode 413

and really honored to have retired administrative law judge from the state of Minnesota and community blogger at the Times of Israel, which is one of, if not the leading media outlet news, media outlet in the state of Israel, the Times of Israel. A significant blogger for the Times of Israel is

Retired judge Eric Lippman a good friend and has joined us on the Andrew Parker show why because he knows Quite a bit about what's going on in the state of Israel as it relates to judicial reform ⁓ As it relates to the foundations underpinning the disagreements ⁓ In Israel on this very important ⁓ subject and before we invite him in ⁓

And I hope you're watching. Let me give Eric a bit of an introduction. He was the assistant chief administrative law judge from 2010 to 2013. Years before that, he was in the Minnesota House of Representatives winning both of his elections from 01 to 04.

He did not run again after that. ⁓ He was chair during those years while he was in the House of Representatives of the House Subcommittee on Elections. So he knows from what he speaks. ⁓ And ⁓ he first became an administrative law judge in August of 2006 and held that position for many, many years and

is ⁓ now retired. ⁓ But, you know, you can't take the smarts out of a guy like Eric Lippman, despite him being retired. And I believe he still does work for the Office of Administrative Hearings. Eric, welcome to the Andrew Parker show.

Eric Lipman (05:50)

Thank you, counselor. I'm delighted to be on THE Andrew Parker Show. I'm not going to forget that first article because there is only one The Andrew Parker, and it's you. A genuine delight.

Andrew Parker (05:54)

Indeed.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you, Judge, very much. ⁓ So, tell us a little bit of, well, first I wanted to ask you, ⁓ you served two terms in the Minnesota House of Representatives. And why did you not serve more?

Eric Lipman (06:22)

It was, as the press release said at the time, a third baby, not third term. As we went from the man on man defense in our small growing family to a zone defense, where it was three against two, my wife felt overmatched. And so rather than spending my summers and evenings door knocking or community meetings, I had to help swaddle that third baby.

And so that's the reason. It's not that I didn't love it, not that I didn't think that I might have been eligible and receive the third greatest compliment. The first two were my first two elections that my neighbor is sending me to represent them at the State House. ⁓ But ⁓ family first. And so there are other ways to serve. This is the great lesson. ⁓ You know, I'm genuinely skeptical of folks who are there, you know, 30, 40 years. ⁓

turn the work over to somebody else, take another piece. And so as you suggested, I went on to be a lawyer for the governor and work in the executive branch and then appointed in 2006 and twice assistant chief. So there are lots of different roles ⁓ if you're open to trying to help out and pull the card. It doesn't have to be just one part.

Andrew Parker (07:42)

Well, there's no, there's no question

that ⁓ that is a good reason not to run again. No, no doubt about it. You were chair of a house subcommittee on elections. You know that I have done quite a bit of work as it relates to elections, federal elections, some fairly important elections, ⁓ and fighting for an accurate count. I, I

Eric Lipman (08:01)

Indeed.

Andrew Parker (08:09)

I foundationally an accurate count is important in elections, wouldn't you agree?

Eric Lipman (08:16)

I completely agree because it all goes to a much more important value, which is public confidence in the result. And that's what we need. If there is genuine good faith, reasonable reasons to doubt, it undermines our trust in government. ⁓ I think genuinely Minnesotans and Americans beyond that ⁓ believe in fair play.

and can take a loss if they lose fair and square, but they certainly don't like to be cheated. And so in order to establish for folks that they're not being cheated and ⁓ that their vote is just as valuable as the next citizens, you know, that's really very important. And also not padding my resume here, for 18 months I was deputy secretary of state too. So I care deeply about...

Andrew Parker (09:08)

Yes!

Eric Lipman (09:11)

about the fair administration of elections. And ⁓ we did a comprehensive rule writing reform to ⁓ boost confidence and build in confidence building measures so that ⁓ ordinary Minnesotans know that when they drop the ballot in the box or have it scanned or send it in by absentee ballot, ⁓ that that vote is going to count ⁓ and not be ⁓ discounted. ⁓

by some other nefarious means. That's important.

Andrew Parker (09:42)

Indeed, indeed it is. Let's turn to the one, the single, the only Jewish state in the world, the state of Israel, and talk a bit about their judicial process. Is it grounded as everything in our rule of law order here in the United States is grounded in? And that is a constitution.

We've talked about it on this show before and the failure of the state of Israel to actually do the work and dig in and develop and adopt a constitution is now coming home to roost.

Eric Lipman (10:15)

huh.

Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. And that was the reason why I wrote the blog post that caught your attention, ⁓ counselor, on the separation of powers morass. If for the benefit of your viewers and listeners, I could just do a little background of history. ⁓ So ⁓ in May 1948, as the British flag on the British mandate in Palestine was being lowered, ⁓

Andrew Parker (10:40)

dude

Yes.

Eric Lipman (10:59)

the proto-Israelis, the members of the Moshev and the provisional government ⁓ and the Yeshuv ⁓ and Ben Gurion's people, met in Mayor Dissengov's house in Tel Aviv. Jerusalem at the time was too dangerous to meet. So they met in Mayor Dissengov's house and they declared that as the British flag was lowered and the British mandate ending, that they were establishing a provisional government for the state of Israel and declaring a new state.

⁓ They said in that document in May 1948 that by October of that year ⁓ they'd get together a Knesset for the purpose of drafting a constitution. That constitution was never drafted. ⁓ Later in the first Knessets, ⁓ actually Ben-Gurion opposed ⁓ the creation ⁓ of a written constitution, a single document that would bind the nation together on the grounds that

⁓ Israel already had a Knesset, they already had a president, they already had a court system, they already declared a state, you know, what do we need a constitution for? That rhetorical question is being answered, I think in spades now, as there's these constant clashes between the Knesset, which as many of your viewers and listeners will know, is both the legislative and executive power in Israel. They have a combined parliamentary system, not unlike

Britain and other parliamentary democracies, the combined legislative and executive branch, the people who are elected to the legislature sometimes serve as ministers, taking an executive role, but that branch clashing with the courts. And because you don't have a unifying superior set of law, again, the Constitution is the highest law of the land here in the United States, because Israel doesn't have that.

⁓ There is this constant back and forth between whether the Knesset ⁓ in making this or that reform or that order or ⁓ outcome in a particular case has lawfully exercised its powers. The most recent example is the purported firing of Galei Baharav Meara, who is the attorney general of ⁓ Israel.

Ordinarily, you would think that the prime minister and the cabinet, which voted unanimously to fire her, could fire a government official who was subordinate. Apparently, the court says no. They issued an injunction saying that she gets to keep her job until the court says ⁓ otherwise and can hear ⁓ the complaints on that. And that raises a number, a myriad of problems ⁓ with ⁓ how it functions.

Andrew Parker (13:45)

Eric,

let me ask you, it seems to me, is it accurate to say that if the judiciary, the Supreme Court, ultimately, in the state of Israel, does not agree with an action, whatever the action, by the Knesset, the Supreme Court can step in and is claiming

fiat over whatever it is that the Knesset may want to do the elected individuals and by the way, the Supreme Court in the state of Israel is not elected by the people. They are elected by the previous Supreme Court justices who were originally put in by a much different ⁓

ideology, you will, conservative to liberal, than currently exists. Is it right that the Supreme Court has total control?

Eric Lipman (14:49)

Absolutely. No, no, no, every syllable

of what you said is accurate. The case that you're looking for is called the Pesahav, ⁓ where the High Court, the Israeli Supreme Court said that they can review any action by the government, administrative, legislative, even a basic law, ⁓ that it can, you know, can review all of those. And if it considers them unreasonable,

no deference whatsoever like we would have here in the United States. Ordinarily, like ⁓ with the president's ⁓ war-making powers or foreign policy powers or ⁓ criminal justice ⁓ powers, those kinds of things, there would be considerable deference by the court ⁓ to executive decision-making. That does not happen under the case of Depezeh Hav ⁓ in Israel. They can...

independently ⁓ judge the reasonableness to their own standards and also the weighting and factors applied by the executive branch official. So imagine, okay.

Andrew Parker (15:56)

So and the standard,

as I just want to underscore what you're just saying, and for folks to really understand the enormity of this, that the standard that the Supreme Court applies is not a stare decisis standard like we have in the United States, which means you will follow the law of the judges who wrote opinions that came before you unless there is

very good reason to overturn it, which is why cases are not overturned very often at all. The standard in Israel is a particular justice's view of what's reasonable.

Eric Lipman (16:38)

Well, a majority of the justices, yeah. And their own private view, it's not drawn from any other source. They can independently of their own cognition, view, know, personal preference, ⁓ you know, they might disagree in that characterization, but there's no boundary on how they can apportion reasonableness. So it's again, it's a very different than a deferential standard. Again, courts here in the US ⁓ to ⁓

to basic powers of the executive would tread lightly. They would defer. There's zero deference ⁓ in Israel and it's very problematic because ⁓ people in good faith can disagree about the propriety or wisdom of a particular...

Andrew Parker (17:23)

And tie

it back to the democracy, to democratic principles, to whether or not these judges are elected by the people. Is there a tie back between these justices and the people?

Eric Lipman (17:43)

⁓ If we were to ask the justices themselves, I think they would say they're preserving the democratic character of Israel. I think that factually is not true or if it is, it's overstated because again, as you point out, the justices themselves are not subject to election and they're countermending the decision of duly elected public officials. So whose democracy, you know.

Andrew Parker (18:06)

Well, yeah, but not only

are they not, not only are they not subject to being elected, but here at least, Supreme Court justices are appointed by the elected president. So it ties back to someone who is elected by the people and who they might pick as their Supreme Court justice appointee or nominee.

⁓ you know, might go into the calculus of somebody's vote. And it certainly does nowadays. And by the way, they have to be confirmed by the majority elected U S Senate. None of that exists in Israel. These justices are picked by the previous justices. So if you're a liberal justice, you're going to pick a liberal justice to replace you. And so the liberal justices run roughshod.

Eric Lipman (18:42)

In this country for sure.

Andrew Parker (19:04)

over the law in the state of Israel, even though Israel is perhaps 80 % center or center right.

Eric Lipman (19:14)

I think all of that's true and it is distressing. Again, going back to our earlier theme, you know, what's going to lend to public confidence in the result? And I don't think that that's necessarily a right-wing or a left-wing kind of idea. You want to have a transparency and political legitimacy. And so as I suggest in the Times of Israel post, which encourage your listeners and viewers to check out, you can just put in my name and Times of Israel and pop right up.

Andrew Parker (19:28)

Right.

Eric Lipman (19:44)

suggests that what Israel needs to do is ⁓ use a referenda process to approve ⁓ their basic laws. If I could do just a little bit more history here. The compromise when ⁓ they didn't draft an original Constitution in 1948 was that they would ⁓ pass a series of special statutes, basic laws, they're still subject to a majority ⁓ opinion.

I'm sorry, majority vote of the legislature, so they're not different. That's not a supermajority requirement to be a basic law. Basically, it has this special title to it, but that was supposed to be ⁓ a series of enactments that would bubble up from the bottom, inductively, a constitution. There's a basic law on the Knesset. There's a basic law on the court system, which provides for the selection process that you've been talking about.

What I think the solution is, is to have a source of law which isn't resident only in the justices own mind that you could actually look to and read and ordinary Israelis could look to and read and say, that's how we decided the case. And if you find that that's unreasonable, presumably there would be other recourses. There doesn't appear to be any other recourse. Now I understand those folks who are supporters of the Israeli Supreme Court and what they're doing saying that

We don't want to give the elected members of the Knesset a monopoly on power. Okay, I'll concede the point entirely. What we need to do is have both Knesset as executive and legislative authority and the courts all subject to the real power, which is Israeli voters. That's what needs to happen. And they need to have the tough conversation about how they're going to organize the state. Again, it's bad timing.

But ⁓ this work doesn't get any easier every day it's postponed. They desperately need a constitution to stop the rioting in the streets.

Andrew Parker (21:40)

No, that's absolutely right. And we have highlighted the reasons why judicial reform in the state of Israel is so important. It does not mean the destruction of the democratic process in the state of Israel. In fact, the exact opposite. It means tying the rule of law to the people, to the democratically elected. Presently, that

doesn't exist in the state of Israel.

Eric Lipman (22:13)

Absolutely. And if I

could just put an explanation point on that, the most recent case, Movement for Quality Government versus the Knesset, this 2024 case, the Knesset enacted a law, a basic law, one of these quasi constitutional provisions to say, we don't want the court to decide cases on the basis of reasonableness, because that's just an individual judge's opinion of what's good or what's not good. It's not tethered to any other source of law. And we think that's inappropriate.

the court set that aside as anti-democratic. Now again, that's in my judgment, cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. You have democratically elected leaders trying to give a standard for the rule of decision. You might not like it, but I think it's at least ⁓ procedurally appropriate and legitimate. ⁓ I don't understand where... ⁓

Andrew Parker (22:51)

Yeah

Eric Lipman (23:07)

the Israeli Supreme Court gets the power or authority to say, yeah, yeah, yeah, we don't like to be cramped in that way, particularly because there's a basic law which provides for functioning of the court. If basic laws aren't the building blocks of an Israeli constitution, what is? I don't think it's some figment of a justice's imagination. ⁓ Not fair, not democratic, not legitimate.

Andrew Parker (23:35)

And our own Barack. ⁓ Give us a little background on a ron.

Eric Lipman (23:41)

Sure.

In fact, a great man. In fact, one of the great things about the St. Paul Jewish Federation is ⁓ that they took a trip, again, under Professor Orrin Gross of the University of Minnesota, Minnesota's great legal pride, ⁓ who had clerked for ⁓ Justice Barack, ⁓ gave an opportunity for a small group of lawyers, which happily included me, to meet the great man. And for your listeners and viewers, this is Israel's

Andrew Parker (23:54)

Indeed, Norm.

Eric Lipman (24:10)

⁓ John Marshall, you know, and think of the greatest justice of all time. Without a doubt, he is the most celebrated and most famous ⁓ justice. He is a creature of the Ashkenazi left. He has more liberal views. But we had a fascinating and interesting, I think, disquieting debate from his point of view about whether there should be a standing requirement in Israel.

Right now in Israel, unlike the United States, anybody can sue in the Israeli Supreme Court for any reason that they're angry. They don't have to have a particular injury that's different from anybody else. Again, which I think overruns the court system, ⁓ which has bogged down already with, I think, more legitimate cases, to just let anybody roll up for any reason at all, ⁓ I think is an abuse of the judicial process.

But that's something that happens quite regularly. And he defended it on the grounds that ⁓ this is a kind of thing that happens in enlightened democracies like the Netherlands. Okay? Again, not a res... You he was given the opportunity, you know, free and open question. We weren't attacking him. He was, you know, sitting in a nice comfy chair in Rijkman University, where he now teaches as distinguished law professor. And, you know, said, you know, these other places around the world, they've got it right. And they let anybody roll up who wants to. We should as well.

Again, if that had been part of a basic law, okay. If that had been part of a statute, okay. If that had been anybody other than him, I think, or a collection of people that had kind of said that, maybe. ⁓ But you just can't sort of ⁓ like the system that they've got, ⁓ that the Dutch have and say, well, we should have it here too. That's what enlightened people do. You're just making it up. And... ⁓

I'll quote a justice from this country, Justice Antonin Scalia, who said, if all of your decisions match your priors as a judge, you're doing it wrong. And I can certainly say that. There's all sorts of official government action, which I've approved, but that I would have never voted for as a legislator, or that I never would have started as an agency manager. But that's the difference between the role of a judge. I'm applying.

a law that was created or a set of laws that was created ⁓ somewhere else, either statutes or regulations, and applying them to a particular case. That's what I do. I'm not making it up. I'm not giving my own judgment about how I think the case should come out. I'm making ⁓ a ruling based upon the law as it existed at the time. I don't think that's happening.

⁓ in Israel. They may well be in good faith, they may well be motivated, they may well not like the current government. Okay, all that's true, but it doesn't make it a legitimate decision if you're not ⁓ basing the decision on a source of law that you didn't create.

Andrew Parker (27:12)

Well, you know, it does come down to different judicial theories ⁓ of interpretation. You are going to have an Antonin Scalia who has a much different perspective on interpreting the Constitution than William Brennan, for example, ⁓ or Warren Burger or Earl Warren.

all quite different and quite different yet again from justice clearance Thomas or Samuel Alito. So Barack stands in his shoes of when you say, well, yeah, he comes from a liberal background. No, he is ultra liberal and he is an interpreter of the law.

as a William Brennan would be, who basically says, ⁓ this feels like the direction that the country is going and, you know, let's do this and tethered to legal precedent, we'll figure that out later. You know, that's just my view. Now, people would say that about William Rehnquist as well on the other side, but I never viewed Rehnquist that way.

Eric Lipman (28:31)

Well, hey.

So actually, I wanna grab a hostage if I could, I probably shouldn't use that word, but I'd like to get Eharon Barak of 1995 in the very famous Ms. Rocky Bank case, which established this idea that they could do a judicial review of Knesset actions, okay? Their version of Marbury versus Madison and Eharon Barak is president of the...

Andrew Parker (28:46)

No, not today.

Eric Lipman (29:05)

the Israeli Supreme Court was the lead author. He said, the reason why ⁓ Israel has this system of a bubble up constitution and making basic laws which have a quasi constitutional status is because the Knesset draws its political legitimacy from voters at an election. I couldn't agree more. That doesn't mean the court gets to substitute its judgment as to reasonableness. It has to be derived from

Andrew Parker (29:07)

Yes?

Right?

Eric Lipman (29:33)

⁓ a judgment somewhere along the lines of voters, which is why, again, I go back to my piece in the Times of Israel, we gotta get the band back together again. We've gotta get Israeli voters ⁓ to approve the kind of country that they want to live in. There already is a basic law which ⁓ provides for referenda. Those kind of referenda, those ballot questions are unusual in Israel, but not unheard of. And we really do need to have that technique.

Just as Eharon Barak in 1995 said, we need to drive the legitimacy of Israeli political decisions from Israeli voters.

Andrew Parker (30:12)

Is there a James Madison in the state of Israel today who can gather people together to sit down and become as brilliant as our founders were? And boy, brilliant they were. It's an understatement ⁓ what that constitutional document really is.

Eric Lipman (30:34)

Absolutely. And again, think Madison had some help, and so we need more helpers. I would nominate Simcha Rothman, who's the chair of the Constitutional Committee, ⁓ as just such a founder. I think he has that broader view. ⁓ And I think he has the kind of disposition where ⁓ he could work with members of ⁓ the opposition. And to my mind, the idea that you would put this in the hands of the voters, saying,

Andrew Parker (30:38)

yes.

Eric Lipman (31:02)

I'm not trying to make the decision about how the courts will decide cases. We want voters to make a decision. I don't know, maybe even have competing visions, which is the court can do reasonableness?

Andrew Parker (31:12)

Ultimately,

that's, you know, that's what needs to happen. Even with our constitution, certainly it had to be ratified by the states. And that was a battle within each state that was raucous.

Eric Lipman (31:28)

Absolutely, and you know one of the great tomes of that time was the Federalist Papers that we still ⁓ look to, study, rely upon, ⁓ know, venerate because ⁓ really very important to have those kinds of periodicals, to have those kinds of discussions, ⁓ it ties you to the country that you love. And I know that Israelis obviously who are fighting and dying for their country and you know engage in national service of all kinds.

You know, these folks love ⁓ the one and only Jewish state and with good reason. ⁓ Here's another way to show ⁓ how you love it and to take, ⁓ I think, the reason to protest in the streets away by resolving in a permanent and legitimate way these kinds of conflicts.

Andrew Parker (32:17)

Well, and discussions like this one may be the beginning of something very special. We're going to suggest that the members of the Knesset, that the members of the Constitution Committee listen to the Andrew Parker Show, episode 413, and maybe... Yes, absolutely. Yes, indeed. God willing.

Eric Lipman (32:34)

Amen.

Can I use Hebrew and say, Be'esha'atashem?

God willing, the Asrata Hashem, that they should listen to THE Andrew Parker Show.

Andrew Parker (32:47)

Eric, thank you so much for joining us today. ⁓ I just, if you have a comment, ⁓ just today it came out that Australia is going to ⁓ vote at the UN and call for a vote, but they will be voting to create a Palestinian state.

And that is now their position. Do you have any comments?

Eric Lipman (33:21)

Yeah, I do have a comment. think it's regrettable. I think the consensus position of the international community for 30 years, perhaps, has been that ⁓ the creation of a Palestinian state has to be the result of bilateral talks between Israelis and Palestinians. That's the only

Andrew Parker (33:39)

wait a minute.

You mean it shouldn't be the result of heinous Nazi-like atrocities on October 7th and rewarding the terrorist organization who committed that?

Eric Lipman (33:50)

Yeah, no, no, I'm firmly on the record as always being anti-Nazi ⁓ and irredentist violence. I much prefer folks ⁓ reasoning with each other and political compromise in ways that are legitimate. Again, among the difficulties are of the Australian resolution and other states, know, France has talked about recognizing ⁓

Andrew Parker (33:56)

that's good. That's good,

Yes.

Eric Lipman (34:16)

Palestinian state and you know among the the problems with that kind of plan and nothing against France or Australia is there aren't any particular boundaries ⁓ they don't seem to have a the ability ⁓ to conduct a foreign policy ⁓ and indeed they're they're disputed elections you know ⁓ Mahmoud Abbas who's the president of the Palestinian Authority is enjoying the 21st year of his four-year term ⁓ it's ridiculous

⁓ If you can't have legitimate elections, conduct a foreign policy, have ⁓ firm and particular boundaries, why don't they name the next state the Eric Lippman state? Because I want to be one.

Andrew Parker (35:00)

And why would you give

⁓ a people a state whose stated position is we will not recognize Israel. The destruction of Israel is in its founding papers and not removed. They continue the policy of ⁓ pay for slay. If you kill a Jew, you get paid. This is who they're giving a Palestinian state to when Israel had offered a Palestinian state

to the Palestinians five separate times, all of them rejected. Now that we have October 7th and the killing and murdering and burning and hostages that still are over there, Australia has the wisdom to suggest this is the time that we should be establishing a Palestinian state. It is absolutely anti-Semitic. I can say nothing more about it. You are much more politic than I am, Anader.

but I appreciate your comments and thank you again for joining us on The Andrew Parker Show. ⁓ Folks, listen, go to theandrewparkershow.com, subscribe, follow. This is one example, episode 413, of all the different things you didn't know before and you walk away and you're that much sharper, that much smarter. ⁓unbelievable. Can you imagine if you listened to the other 412 episodes?

All right, let's go. The Andrew Parker Show.com. Subscribe, follow, like. There it is. Where is it? Yep, there it is. 952522818. You can text us if you disagree. I'd love to hear from you. If you agree, we may put you on the air. Thank you, Eric Littman, for joining us. And until next time, be kind to your neighbor.

Eric Lipman (36:52)

A delight.