Israel's Top Court Rejects Minister's Bid to Advance E1 Housing Tender
Translated & summarized from Ynet by baba
Israel's High Court of Justice rejected an appeal by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich to advance construction tenders in the E1 area before the 2026 elections. The court upheld Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara's directive to postpone the tenders, citing concerns about election propaganda. The judges ruled that the timing could unfairly influence the election results and bind the next government.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Israel's High Court rejected Finance Minister Smotrich's appeal to advance E1 housing tenders.
- The court upheld the Attorney General's order to delay the tenders until after the 2026 elections.
- The Attorney General cited concerns of prohibited election propaganda as the reason for the delay.
- Smotrich accused the Attorney General of interfering in elections and hindering a right-wing government.
- The court found the timing of the tender could unfairly influence the upcoming elections.
Israel's High Court of Justice on Thursday rejected an appeal by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich against the Attorney General's directive to postpone construction tenders in the E1 area near Ma'ale Adumim until after the 2026 elections. The case marked another direct confrontation between the Finance Minister and Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara.
Smotrich had been promoting a tender for over a thousand new housing units in the E1 territory. The Attorney General advised delaying the tender process, citing concerns about "prohibited election propaganda." Smotrich countered that the Attorney General and her staff were becoming "active players in the elections" and attempting to prevent a right-wing government from forming.
The High Court, with Justices Daphne Barak-Erez, Ofer Grosskopf, and Khaled Kabub, ruled that decisions regarding tender procedures are subject to the rules governing the restraint of acting governments. They found that the Attorney General's decision to delay the tender opening was justified, stating, "The answer to this is unequivocally negative."
The judges further elaborated that the Attorney General's directive stemmed from considerations that favored intervention in the tender process. They noted the significant public sensitivity surrounding the E1 tenders, and that their timing could be exploited for election propaganda or could tie the hands of the next government. Conversely, the court found the municipality's arguments for the urgency of completing the tender to be of lesser weight.
The court emphasized that the proximity to election day raises concerns that the date could be used to advance the political interests of current government members. While acknowledging that candidates may present their achievements, the court stressed the need to examine whether timing actions close to an election could unfairly influence the results, preventing the executive authority from using its powers for purposes other than those for which they were granted.