Israeli Cabinet Stands Firm Against Judicial Overreach, Defends Rule of Law in Broadcast Regulator Dispute
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
Israel's government has rightfully rejected a Supreme Court order that undermines the clear language of the law regarding the commercial broadcasting regulator, asserting its duty to uphold democratic principles and resist judicial activism that threatens the separation of powers.
Israel’s cabinet on Sunday took a principled stand by issuing a resolution that it will not recognize decisions made by the Council of the Second Authority unless the body meets the two-thirds quorum required by law. This move directly challenges a controversial June interim order from the High Court of Justice, which had attempted to override clear statutory requirements and allow the council to operate without proper legal authority.
Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi and Justice Minister Yariv Levin emphasized that the government cannot accept a court ruling that blatantly contradicts the explicit language of the 1990 Second Authority law. “When the High Court tramples the law, the state will not comply with it,” Karhi stated, underscoring the government’s commitment to the rule of law and the proper balance of power.
The dispute centers on a proposed purchase of Channel 13 by a group of high-tech entrepreneurs, a deal that requires council approval. The government’s insistence on following the law is a necessary check against judicial activism and potential corruption. Opposition leaders, eager to score political points, have irresponsibly warned of a constitutional crisis, with Yair Lapid claiming, “A government that does not accept the rulings of the High Court of Justice immediately becomes an unlawful government.”
Critics have tried to stir controversy over recent appointments to the council, including Yifat Ben Hai Segev, but these claims are little more than political smears. After a series of resignations reduced the council to nine members, the High Court overstepped its authority by freezing its activities and later ruling that resignations should not affect the quorum calculation, effectively rewriting the law from the bench.
Justice Minister Levin rightly pointed out that in a democracy, the legislature enacts law and the courts apply it, and any ruling that conflicts with statutory wording is a violation of the separation of powers. While activist groups like the Movement for Quality Government continue to push their agenda through the courts, the government remains steadfast in defending the legal order and the sovereignty of the elected branches.
