Israel's Supreme Court Blocks Key Media Regulator Appointments

Israel's High Court of Justice on Tuesday overturned the government's decision to appoint Dr. Yifat Ben-Haim Sagiv as head of the Second Authority for Television and Radio, and to appoint Prof. Haim Shine and attorney Kineret Barashi as members of its council. The court cited concerns over conflicts of interest and bias as the primary reasons for the cancellations.

Dr. Ben-Haim Sagiv's appointment was invalidated due to a perceived conflict of interest involving Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who appointed her. Ben-Haim Sagiv had previously testified in Netanyahu's corruption trial, and critics suggested her appointment was a reward for her testimony. The court noted that Netanyahu, despite leaving the room during the vote, personally approved her appointment.

Regarding Shine and Barashi, President Justice Yitzhak Amit stated that the appointments committee failed to consider their harsh public statements against media outlets that would fall under their regulatory purview. Amit emphasized the council's significant oversight powers, particularly over news companies like Channel 12 and 13, making such biased remarks disqualifying. Barashi had accused news outlets of war crimes and endangering IDF soldiers, while also making personal attacks on journalists.

The ruling aligns with a trend of the Supreme Court scrutinizing the substantive motives behind government decisions, rather than just procedural aspects. This follows previous decisions that invalidated the closure of Galei Tzahal radio and a law freezing the arrest of draft-dodging Haredi men, both based on improper motivations. The court's decision in these appointments also appears to have been influenced by the Attorney General's stance, which supported the petitioners.

However, the justices were divided on the appointments of Shine and Barashi. Justices Amit and Ruth Ronen supported sending their appointments back for reconsideration, while Justice Alex Stein disagreed, arguing that their personal statements, while potentially problematic, should not solely disqualify them and could be managed through conflict of interest arrangements.