The end of the rule of law.. How did a decision regarding television broadcasting push Israel towards a constitutional crisis? | policy

Israeli newspapers reported on the Cabinet’s decision to refuse to implement the Supreme Court’s ruling to freeze appointments to the “Second Authority” regulating commercial television and radio broadcasting, considering that the step represents a new escalation in the confrontation between the executive and judicial authorities, and pushes towards a worsening constitutional crisis in Israel.

The Jerusalem Post editorial said that the government’s decision issued on Sunday is not limited to a dispute over appointments, but rather reflects a broader trend by the ruling coalition to determine which judicial orders can be adhered to and which can be ignored.

She added that what happened represents a transition from the stage of criticizing the judiciary to the stage of refusing to comply with it, which, according to the newspaper, constitutes a direct violation of the principle of the rule of law.

The newspaper pointed out that successive Israeli governments had previously criticized the Supreme Court’s decisions, but the fundamental difference today is the “threat of non-compliance,” which puts the political system before an unprecedented test. It considered that the Broadcasting Regulatory Authority is not an ordinary administrative institution, but rather a sensitive body that supervises the media sector, which makes its independence a basic condition for public confidence.

Legal warnings

For its part, the “Ynet” website, affiliated with the newspaper “Yedioth Ahronoth”, published an explanatory report entitled “This is how the Supreme Court’s order regarding broadcast regulation turned into a constitutional crisis,” in which it indicated that the government’s decision raised legal warnings that officials may find themselves forced to choose between submitting to the Council of Ministers or the Supreme Court if the confrontation escalates.

The report explained that the case began from petitions submitted by multiple parties, including the Journalists Syndicate in Israel, Channel 12, the “Quality of Governance” movement, the Israeli Press Council, and legal associations.

Objections focused on defects in the appointment procedures, including speed in decision-making, the absence of a sufficient information base, fears of conflicts of interest and political connections, in addition to the weak representation of the Arab community.

Controversial appointments

The report also indicated that among the controversial appointments was the appointment of Yifat Ben Hai-Segev as head of the council, noting that she had testified in the “4000” case linked to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which raised questions about a conflict of interest, especially since the government itself participated in approving the appointment.

In this context, the “issue of those who resigned” also emerged within the outgoing Council, as the Supreme Court referred in the rationale for its decision to written statements submitted by official bodies and former members of the Council that raised suspicions that some of the resignations were not merely an administrative withdrawal, but rather may be related to an attempt to influence the course of judicial oversight or weaken the court’s ability to decide on petitions.

The court added that the temporal coincidence between the resignations and the judicial procedures raised additional question marks, especially in light of the attempts of some members to move to the new composition of the Council after their resignation from the old one.

Accordingly, the court decided not to count the temporarily resigned members as part of the Council’s quorum calculation, with the aim of preventing the paralysis of its work until the final decision on the case. It described the situation as “exceptional” and required maintaining the continuity of the regulatory body’s work.

Ynet:
Observers said that the current crisis is no longer confined to a media or administrative file, but rather has become a direct test of the limits of the rule of law in Israel.

The danger lies in the precedent of rejection

Ynet explained that the danger does not lie in the direct impact of the government’s position, but rather in the precedent of refusal to comply with judicial rulings issued by the Supreme Court, which may open the door to repeating the same approach in more sensitive files that affect the daily work of state institutions and the balance of powers within them.

In this context, observers warned that the current crisis is no longer confined to a media or administrative file, but rather has become a direct test of the limits of the rule of law in Israel, and the extent to which the decisions of the Supreme Court remain binding on the executive authority.

It is not an isolated incident

The Haaretz newspaper’s editorial was more severe, as it considered that the government’s decision constituted a practical declaration of “the end of the rule of law.” She saw that the Council of Ministers, headed by Netanyahu, approved a position that practically means that the government will determine what is legal and what is illegal, and that institutions such as the Supreme Court or the Attorney General will lose their effective oversight role.

Haaretz added that what is happening is not an isolated incident, but rather part of a long process of confrontation with the judiciary, which the current government has been leading for months, whether through legislation or through obstruction or refusal to implement previous judicial decisions.

The editorial indicates that the motives are not limited to the institutional conflict, but rather are intertwined with political and personal considerations, in light of judicial files affecting the Prime Minister himself, in addition to the relative political decline of the ruling coalition, which, according to the newspaper, pushes him to strengthen his grip on state institutions.

A call for broad action

Haaretz concluded by calling for broad political and institutional action by the head of state, opposition parties, and civil society institutions, to prevent the collapse of the system of checks and balances, and to preserve the independence of the judiciary as the basic pillar of Israeli democracy.

While estimates vary about the direct impact of the government’s decision, the common denominator in press coverage and editorials is the warning that the current confrontation is no longer an ordinary legal dispute, but rather has turned into a structural crisis that affects the essence of the relationship between the authorities in Israel.