Israel Cabinet Threatens to Disregard Supreme Court Ruling on Media Regulator

The Israeli government declared on Sunday that it would ignore an order from the country’s highest court, escalating a long‑standing conflict between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and the judiciary, which he has pledged to curb.

Legal experts described the statement as one of the most overt attempts by Netanyahu’s administration to legitimize defiance of the Supreme Court. They warned that such moves could set the stage for a constitutional crisis.

On Sunday, Netanyahu’s cabinet approved a resolution criticizing the court over a decision issued last month in a case involving Israel’s broadcast regulator, the Second Authority. In a clear act of defiance, the cabinet said it would not recognize any actions taken by the regulator for the time being and would employ “every legal means” to overturn the ruling.

Justice Minister Yariv Levin, in a joint statement with another senior minister, asserted that the court’s decision “contradicts the clear language of the law.” He added that the government “will not recognize actions carried out under its authority.”

The stance quickly drew harsh criticism within Israel. President Isaac Herzog, whose role is largely ceremonial, cautioned that “statements of noncompliance with Supreme Court rulings strike at the heart of the nation’s unity.” He emphasized, “Noncompliance with a court ruling is a red line that must not be crossed under any circumstances.”

Late Sunday, Cabinet Secretary Yossi Fuchs attempted to calm the uproar, saying the resolution did not explicitly defy the Supreme Court order. He characterized it as an expression of “sharp criticism of a ruling,” though this explanation did not reconcile with the defiant remarks made earlier by Levin and the other minister.

The dispute reignited concerns about democratic backsliding in Israel, where Netanyahu’s earlier effort to overhaul the justice system sparked mass protests three years ago. Critics argue that the overhaul was intended to grant the ruling coalition near‑unlimited executive power.

At the core of the latest legal battle is Israel’s broadcast regulator, known as the Second Authority. The agency remains led by a board of commissioners appointed by the previous government, which was opposed to Netanyahu’s coalition.

In recent months, a group of investors, including Assaf Rappaport—a known Netanyahu critic—sought to acquire Channel 13, a major Israeli broadcaster. The purchase would normally require approval from the Second Authority.

When Netanyahu’s government nominated its own commissioners to the board, the Supreme Court placed a freeze on their appointments while it reviewed petitions from media organizations and civil‑rights groups. Some of these groups challenged the new board members over potential conflicts of interest.

In the decision now being challenged, the Court ruled that the original board could continue to function, citing “exceptional circumstances.” Netanyahu’s government countered that the ruling disregarded existing legislation and noted that several board members had resigned, leaving the board without the quorum required by Israeli law.

Since returning to power in late 2022, Netanyahu has pursued a campaign to weaken Israel’s judiciary, arguing that the Supreme Court had accumulated excessive power and was impeding elected officials. He has also criticized prosecutors for bringing corruption charges against him in 2019, allegations he denies.

The judicial overhaul effort stalled after the Hamas attacks on Oct. 7, 2023, triggered the war in Gaza, as national attention shifted to external threats. However, Netanyahu’s coalition later revived the judicial agenda, including by passing a law last year that altered how judges are selected.

Israel is scheduled to hold parliamentary elections later this year, the first since the Oct. 7 attacks. Many view the contest as crucial. In a recent interview with right‑wing Channel 14, Netanyahu vowed to press forward with the judicial reforms.

“We are continuing with our judicial amendments,” he said. “Is there anyone who doesn’t think there’s a need for them?”

Source link