Israeli cabinet members voted unanimously on Sunday to defy a Supreme Court decision concerning the country’s broadcast regulator, escalating tensions between the executive and judiciary and raising fears of a constitutional crisis. This marks the first time Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has openly flouted a Supreme Court ruling, though it has previously clashed with the judiciary.
Background of the Dispute
The conflict centers on the Second Authority for Television and Radio, Israel’s broadcast regulator. Israeli law requires the authority’s council to have a minimum number of members to make decisions. The government argues that the council no longer meets that requirement and therefore lacks the authority to approve appointments or take other actions. However, on June 17, the Supreme Court ordered the council to continue functioning despite the shortfall.
After elections in 2022, the government sought to limit the court’s powers, drawing global criticism and mass protests in Israel. Those judicial reform efforts were shelved after the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks, but some parts have since been revived.
Cabinet’s Unanimous Vote
Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi and Justice Minister Yariv Levin, a key proponent of judicial changes, announced the cabinet’s decision in a joint statement. The cabinet said the court had no authority to trample on the law and declared it would “act through all legal means at its disposal to nullify the decision.” The statement added: “A ruling that contradicts the law will not be recognized and decisions made under it are null and void.”
Karhi and Levin proposed that the government not recognize any council decisions or actions until the legal threshold for membership is met. Karhi criticized the court, saying judges are not parliament, and argued that any decisions the media regulator makes in the future would be “worthless.” Levin added that when parliament enacts a law, the court must abide by it.
Political Reactions
The decision was swiftly condemned by opposition leaders. Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid said, “the government had turned criminal.” He added: “This is the most serious constitutional crisis in Israel’s history. It’s the destruction of the foundations of our democracy.”
Naftali Bennett, who served as prime minister from 2021 to 2022, warned: “Not adhering to court rulings brings anarchy in the streets and the disintegration of our country.” Gadi Eisenkot, who is leading in polls to replace Netanyahu, said Israel’s government was “raising a hand against Israeli democracy” and that Netanyahu was “dividing Israel.”
Israeli President Isaac Herzog also weighed in, stating that statements of disobedience to Supreme Court rulings harm the core of unity in the nation. “I have already made it clear, and I will repeat it again and again — disobedience to a court ruling is a red line that must not be crossed under any circumstances,” he said.
However, Cabinet Secretary Yossi Fuchs downplayed the ministers’ rhetoric, saying there was no call for disobeying the court’s decision but rather a “sharp criticism” of a ruling that contradicts the government’s law. “The government declared that it will use all legal tools at its disposal to overturn the decision in the future. How do legal tools become disobedience to a ruling?” Fuchs wrote in an X post.
Broader Implications
The cabinet’s decision could affect the possible approval of the sale of Israel’s Channel 13, one of the country’s major commercial television networks and a critic of Netanyahu, to a group of high-tech entrepreneurs. It may also affect whether right-wing, pro-Netanyahu Channel 14 should continue to be classified as a “small channel” – a designation that grants it regulatory benefits and exemptions.
Netanyahu has not commented on the cabinet’s decision. A date for new elections has not yet been set, but one is expected in September or October.
Legal experts expressed worries of a constitutional crisis, with fears that the government’s defiance could undermine the rule of law and set a dangerous precedent for future conflicts between the branches of government.
