What’s happened: Domestic politics in Israel was roiled by a unanimous decision by the Israeli cabinet yesterday not to comply with a Supreme Court ruling regarding a regulatory agency of commercial broadcast media.
- The controversy has come to a head over a deal to purchase Channel 13, a commercial broadcaster whose news broadcasts are seen by many as more liberal-leaning and hostile to the Government. In March 2026, a consortium of hi-tech billionaires, all more or less publicly identified with the opposition, swooped in with a successful bid to purchase the station. The government would prefer to block this buy-out.
- In Israel, buy-outs need to be approved by a regulatory body known as the Second Authority for Television and Radio, yet this body currently does not have a quorum of members, due to several resignations – allegedly under political pressure – in the last two months.
- The Government’s position is that without a quorum of 10 members, the Second Authority cannot function and thus cannot make binding decisions.
- The Supreme Court had to decide whether to allow the continued functioning of the Second Authority or yield to the Government’s demand to hobble it or pack it with loyalist appointees who might not meet normal standards. Ultimately, it decided that the least bad option was to allow the Second Authority to keep functioning without the quorum. The Supreme Court identified the suspicion that resignations from the Second Authority were deliberately orchestrated by the government in order to stymie the Authority’s ability to rule on the Channel 13 buy-out by investors who are identified with the opposition.
- It is this ruling which the Cabinet yesterday decided it would not abide by.
- Reactions to the Cabinet decision have been furious, and despite significant developments on both the Gaza and Lebanon fronts (as well as a series of US visits being planned by senior officials for the coming week, a possible indication of a turning point on the Iran issue), the story has dominated headlines in Israel today.
- President Herzog responded to the Cabinet decision with a statement that “noncompliance with the Supreme Court’s rulings is a red line that must never be crossed under any circumstances.”
- Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi, the politician most identified with the Government’s push to dismantle existing commercial media regulation, attacked both the President and the Supreme Court ruling, saying, “Where was the president two weeks ago when the High Court of Justice handed down a decision in explicit contradiction to the law?”
- Cabinet Secretary Yossi Fuchs denied that the Government was disobeying a Court ruling at all. “Contrary to reports, there isn’t a single word in the statement that calls for noncompliance with High Court of Justice rulings but, rather, fierce criticism of a ruling that is contrary to the explicit wording of the law,” he said in a statement, refereeing to the legally mandated quorum which the Court ruled was not necessary for now.
- Opposition leader Yair Lapid was scathing in his reaction to the Cabinet decision. “This is the collapse of the foundations of our democracy,” he said. “Today, the government became a criminal. If the government sees that it is about to lose the election, either it will cheat in the election or it will announce that it is postponing the election because of a tense security situation or for some other reason, and there will no possibility of appealing this in court, because as far as it is concerned, there is no court.”
- Prime Minister Netanyahu recused himself from the vote in Cabinet on the matter, as his current trial would have put him in a conflict of interest. Nevertheless, it was universally understood that the measure was being passed with his support and encouragement.
Context: The agency in question is Israel’s Second Authority for Television and Radio, which was formed in 1990 to regulate commercial broadcasting. A separate body, the Israel Broadcasting Authority, regulates public broadcasting.
- The Second Authority is supposed to comprise 15 members, and by law has a quorum of 10 for binding decisions. Until recently, it had 14 members, but seven have resigned in one way or another, reportedly under pressure from Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi, who has been advancing a controversial media reform bill that would give the Government much more direct control of commercial media management.
- The issue of whether the Authority can convene without a quorum of members – which the Supreme Court said is possible and which the government opposes – might seem arcane and technical. But is has sparked furious passions for two reasons.
- First, the outcome over the fight on this regulatory body will have far-reaching implications for the media environment in Israel. The struggle to influence private and public media (or the struggle to protect them from undue corporate or government influence) is one of the main threads connecting both the Netanyahu corruption trials and the attempted judicial reform launched in early 2023.
- Second, the precedent set by a Government announcing that it is practically ignoring a Supreme Court ruling reignites all the passions of the 2023 imbroglio over the judicial overhaul. For the Government’s critics, it serves as an indication of potential future attempts to skirt legal rulings and normative governance practices as the nation heads towards general elections which, if current polling is accurate, the governing coalition is slated to lose.
- Channel 13 has the lowest ratings of the major news broadcasters, which are dominated by Channel 12 (also known as N12), whose reputation is more centrist, but also quite hostile to the Government and especially the Prime Minister.
- Nevertheless, Channel 13 has been the target of efforts by Government loyalists to push its news coverage in a more friendly direction. In 2024, the board installed Yulia Shamalov-Berkovich, a former MK from the centrist Kadima party whose politics had moved distinctly to the right as CEO of Channel 13 News, despite her lack of relevant of experience in media or management. This led to an open revolt among the newsroom’s journalists, who refused to work with her, and she was ultimately forced to resign.
- In the months following that affair, there were several attempts to engineer buyouts of Channel 13 by investors, some of whom were identified publicly with the right-wing coalition. All of these fell through due to regulatory or financial problems.
- In March of this year, when the consortium of tech billionaires identified with the opposition succeeded in presenting a buyout of Channel 13, and it was at this point that the Communications Minister sought to change the composition of the Second Authority. The Court blocked his attempt to scramble the Second Authority and recreate it with his appointments as a conflict of interest and an attempt to block the successful buyout bid.
Looking ahead: The range of dates on which the next general election can be held continues to narrow. The latest legal date is October 27 of this year. By law, elections are held on Tuesday, and must be held at least ninety but no more than 150 days after parliament is formally dissolved.
- For weeks, the coalition has been advancing a motion to dissolve parliament and hold early elections. Normally, this is a quick process, but this time while it was ongoing, the parties whose dispute was the reason for calling early elections — Likud and the religious nationalist parties on the one hand and the ultra-Orthodox parties on the other — found common cause on a bevy of controversial legislation.
- At this point, the only Tuesdays that meet the legal time requirements are all in October, and the first two (October 6 and October 13) are impractical because of their proximity to holidays. This means that “early” elections will be early by, at most, one week (October 20) and may very well take place on their original date (October 27).


