Over this past Shabbat, Israel witnessed one of the worst terrorist attacks in 12 years. Seven were shot dead as they exited the synagogue in East Jerusalem after services, and others are in critical condition. 

In addition to an increase in terrorist activity, Israel's new government led by Prime Minister Netanyahu has spurred on a serious national debate over the Supreme Court.  

Netanyahu's government wants judicial reform in four areas: 

1. Judicial interpretation of Israel's Basic Laws. 
2. Judicial oversight of Executive actions.
3. Judicial appointment Committee changes.
4. Reporting structural reforms. 

According to Eran Lerman, chief editor of The Strategic Jerusalem Tribune, 

The debate in Israel is generating a lot of heat on partisan lines but little light. Opponents of the new government’s proposals see them as stripping the judiciary of its independence and thus striking a blow to the country’s democracy. Proponents see these proposals as long-overdue reforms to restrain judicial activism and bring Israel's judiciary in line with those of other parliamentary democracies. (click to read article)

The issue that sits underneath the surface has more to do with an ideological clash being spurred on by the institutions, organizations and political leaders being supported by the Soros funded Open Society Foundation. 

This clash can be summarized in one sentence: moral law vs. international law (based on the UDHR—Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

Notably, this problem is highlighted in reform area #1. 

Few speak of the issues facing Israel in these terms. However, if you understand the makeup of Israel's Supreme Court and the "basic laws" through which it governs, you would understand that often Israeli Judges use International Law as precedence to interpret law. Such precedence often works against Israel's self-determination in issues of sovereignty (i.e. Israeli legitimate rights to the land), National Security,  and internal changes determined by the Knesset (when in tension with the opposition parties). 

This judicial parlay has given rise to serious issues over national sovereignty, with the Supreme Court often siding with Human Rights organizations and NGOs that oppose national Israel. 

Currently under the Netanyahu administration (also seen During COVID) protests are being well orchestrated by trained organizers connected to organizations funded by the Open Society Foundation. 

The method in which these political debates are organized into protests is called the "Bird Dog." 

Bird Dogging (apart from being a Yoga pose) is a very strategic and aggressive form of political intimidation and manipulation used by progressive left groups when in disagreement with a conservative company's policy or a conservative government's agenda.

"Bird Dogging" includes:

• "funded protests," these are protests led by organizations and trained organizers funded by larger organizations like the Open Society Foundation; 
• "verbal assault" until the other side backs down—the opposite of dialogue and free speech etiquette.
• "targeted email blasts" until the targeted offender capitulates, and
• "cancel culture" that pressures businesses to "cancel" agreements with said "offender." (its the citizens version of sanctions).

These are the tactics being used to pressure the Netanyahu government.  They are the same tactics used to pressure conservative leaders in America and election outcomes. 

I propose Progressive Left Institutions, Think Tanks, Policy Centers, and Political Parties have departed from traditional democratic norms to embrace a new type of democracy that abhors moral law and foments nihilism by replacing Moral Law with the Rule of Law as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

For this reason, Moral Law is incompatible with International Law and any conservative government is now "threatening democracy."

 Hadas