Israeli Government Unanimously Rejects Supreme Court Ruling on Communications Authority

In a significant political and legal development, the Israeli government unanimously approved a decision declaring it will not recognize the Supreme Court ruling that reinstated the Second Authority for Television and Radio council, appointed by the previous government. The government stated that any court ruling blatantly contradicting the law is null and void and will not be acknowledged. This decision was made following the Supreme Court's mid-June ruling that restored the council's activity despite its membership falling below the legally required two-thirds threshold.

The government’s resolution, proposed by Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi and Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Minister Yariv Levin, emphasized that the rule of law applies to all branches of government, including the judiciary. They argued that the court cannot grant authority not explicitly provided by law, and therefore, the government will not recognize any actions taken by the council under the disputed ruling. The ministers also warned the Israeli communications market that any decisions made by the current council would be considered invalid and unenforceable.

Minister Karhi sharply criticized the Supreme Court judges, accusing them of overreach and stating, "The rule of law is not the rule of judges." He insisted that the two-thirds membership requirement is a legal mandate, not a recommendation, and any council not meeting this condition is effectively non-existent. Justice Minister Levin supported this stance, highlighting the principle of separation of powers and asserting that the court must implement the law as legislated by the Knesset. He described the court’s ruling as a violation of this principle and pledged to use all legal means to restore the rule of law.

Legal experts warn that this unprecedented government stance could trigger a constitutional crisis, creating a direct confrontation between the executive branch and the judiciary. This conflict places state officials, legal advisors, and communications regulators in a difficult position regarding whether to comply with the government’s directive or the Supreme Court’s ruling. The situation is expected to provoke widespread legal and public debate in the coming days.