Israel is facing a deepening constitutional crisis following a government decision to openly defy a ruling from the High Court of Justice, marking the first time in the country’s history that such a move has been explicitly declared. On Sunday, the government announced that it would not recognize any decisions made by the Council of the Second Authority, a commercial broadcasting regulatory body, while it lacks a two-thirds quorum of members. This declaration, backed by Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi and Justice Minister Yariv Levin, signals a significant escalation in tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary.
The dispute centers around the composition of the Second Authority, which is currently under scrutiny due to a proposed buyout of Channel 13 by a group of high-tech entrepreneurs, many of whom are vocal critics of the government. The council must approve such transactions, and the government has been accused of attempting to manipulate its structure to block the deal. The High Court ruled in June that the council should be allowed to function despite not having the required number of members, citing concerns that some resignations were orchestrated to halt its operations.
The government, however, rejected this ruling, arguing that it conflicts with the 1990 law governing the Second Authority. It asserted that the court’s interpretation of the law was flawed and that the ruling could not grant authority that did not already exist under existing statutes. In a joint statement, Karhi and Levin emphasized that the government would not recognize any actions taken by the council unless it met the legal threshold for quorum. This stance has drawn sharp criticism from both the opposition and the president of Israel, who warned that such defiance threatens the foundation of the country’s democratic institutions.
President Isaac Herzog condemned the government’s decision as crossing a “red line,” stating that refusal to comply with a court ruling strikes at the heart of national unity. He reiterated that such disobedience must not be tolerated under any circumstances. Similarly, opposition leaders have labeled the government an “illegal entity,” claiming that its rejection of judicial authority undermines the rule of law. Yair Lapid, leader of the Together Party, warned that the government’s actions could lead to anarchy if it continues to disregard court rulings, particularly in matters related to upcoming elections.
The controversy has also drawn comparisons to previous crises involving judicial reforms, with some analysts suggesting that the current situation echoes the turmoil surrounding the proposed overhaul of Israel’s judiciary in late 2022. Retired Supreme Court Justice Hanan Melcer likened the government’s declaration to the prelude of a coup, warning that such moves could invite external threats and internal instability. His comments reflect growing fears that the government’s defiance of judicial authority might erode public confidence in the rule of law and trigger further unrest.
Despite the government’s firm stance, some within its ranks have expressed caution. Culture and Sports Minister Miki Zohar, a member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party, denied that the government intended to provoke a constitutional crisis. She insisted that Netanyahu would abide by the High Court’s decision and that the government’s resolution aimed to prevent rather than incite such a conflict. However, her assertions have done little to quell the concerns of opponents who see the move as a calculated effort to consolidate power ahead of the upcoming elections.
The implications of the government’s decision extend beyond the immediate issue of the Second Authority. Critics argue that the move sets a precedent that could embolden the government to ignore other judicial rulings in the future, potentially undermining the separation of powers and weakening checks on executive authority. Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, who is running against Netanyahu in the election, warned that the government’s defiance could lead to chaos if citizens are left unsure of whom to follow—whether the government, the courts, or neither.
As the situation unfolds, the focus remains on whether the government will adhere to the High Court’s rulings or continue to challenge its authority. With the upcoming elections looming, the stakes are high, and the outcome of this constitutional standoff could shape the trajectory of Israeli democracy for years to come.
6 izvještaja
The Times of IsraelNeovisanKonzervativnoČinjenice 85Objektivnost 75prije 3 danaIzraelska vlada je objavila da neće slijediti presudu Visokog suda pravde koja je omogućila radu Vijeća drugog autoriteta unatoč nedostatku potrebnog dvotrećinskog kvoruma. To je prvi put u povijesti Izraela da je vlada otvoreno odbila pridržavati se takve sudske odluke, što je izazvalo zabrinutost zbog ustavne krize.
Procjena pristranosti (Konzervativno): U članku se opovrgavanje Visokog suda od strane vlade prikazuje kao nužno potvrđivanje vladavine prava, koristeći snažan jezik kao što su "potiskuje zakon" i "pijan od moći" kako bi kritizirao pravosuđe.
Zašto ove ocjene (Činjenice 85 · Objektivnost 75): Factuality is high as the article accurately reports the government's stance and provides context about the dispute involving the Second Authority. Objectivity is slightly lower due to the use of phrases like 'constitutional crisis' which may carry subjective weight.
The Times of IsraelNeovisanProgresivnoČinjenice 85Objektivnost 70prije 3 dana AG: Obećanje vlade da neće poslušati Vrhovni sud potkopava temeljna načela vladavine pravaIzraelska vlada je objavila svoju namjeru da zanemari nedavnu presudu Visokog suda pravde u vezi s radom Vijeća drugog tijela, regulatornog tijela koje nadzire komercijalno emitiranje. Ovaj potez, koji je prvi put da je vlada otvoreno odbila pridržavati se takve sudske odluke, izazvao je značajnu reakciju predsjednika Isaaca Herzoga, glavnog državnog tužitelja Gali Baharav-Miara i opozicijskih čelnika. Oni tvrde da stav vlade potkopava vladavinu prava i prijeti demokratskim institucijama. Spor je usredotočen na to može li vijeće, kojem nedostaje kvorum, raditi i treba li odobriti predloženu kupnju kanala 13 od strane visokotehnoloških poduzetnika koji se protive vladi. Kritičari optužuju ministra komunikacija Shlomo Karhija i ministra pravde Levina Yarivina da pokušavaju provesti političku kontrolu nad vijećem kako bi blokirali kupnje, podržane prethodnim sudskim odlukama.
Procjena pristranosti (Progresivno): U članku se odbijanje vlade da se pridržava Visokog suda opisuje kao napad na vladavinu prava i demokraciju, u skladu s lijevim kritikama izvršne vlasti.
Zašto ove ocjene (Činjenice 85 · Objektivnost 70): Factuality is high as it aligns with other sources and presents the government's actions and reactions accurately. Objectivity is somewhat lower due to the inclusion of statements from the attorney general and political figures, which can introduce bias.
HaaretzNeovisan🔒KonzervativnojučerČlanak izvješćuje o produbljivanju ustavne krize u Izraelu, jer je ministar pravosuđa pozvao Knesset da ne uzima u obzir presudu Vrhovnog suda u vezi s glasanjem o imenovanju državnog čuvara.
Procjena pristranosti (Konzervativno): Članak uokviruje poziv ministra pravosuđa da se suprotstavi Visokom sudu kao legitimni izazov pravosudnom prekoračenju, usklađujući se s konzervativnim perspektivama koje naglašavaju zakonodavni suverenitet.
The Jerusalem PostNeovisanProgresivnoprekjučerLider opozicije Yair Lapid optužio je izraelsku vladu da namjerno prkosi presudi Visokog suda o sastavu Drugog savjeta vlasti kao dio strategije za manipulaciju predstojećim izborima. Lapid je tvrdio da vlada ima za cilj potkopati pravosudni nadzor, što bi joj potencijalno omogućilo da odgodi ili namjesti izbore tvrdeći sigurnosne prijetnje ili proglasi sebe pobjednikom bez pravnog pribjegavanja.
Procjena pristranosti (Progresivno): U članku se odbijanje vlade da se pridržava odluke Visokog suda prikazuje kao namjerni pokušaj da se manipulišu izborima, koristeći snažan jezik poput "krade", "prijevara" i "otrovne mašine".
HaaretzNeovisan🔒Konzervativnoprekjučer Zašto je izraelska vlada otvoreno prkosila Vrhovnom sudu?U članku se raspravlja o potencijalnoj ustavnoj krizi u Izraelu, jer vlada otvoreno prkosi presudi Vrhovnog suda. Sud je ranije presudio da su određene sigurnosne mjere nezakonite, ali vlada ih je nastavila provoditi unatoč ovoj odluci.
Procjena pristranosti (Konzervativno): U članku se navodi da su vladine akcije neophodne za nacionalnu sigurnost, što implicira da je presuda pravosuđa pretjerano oprezna ili politički motivirana.
The Times of IsraelNeovisanSredinaprije 3 dana Ministar inzistira da će se premijer pokoriti presudi Visokog suda, ne traži ustavnu krizuMinistar kulture i sporta Miki Zohar odbacio je tvrdnje da nedavna rezolucija izraelske vlade predstavlja izjavu o namjeri da se suprotstavi presudi Visokog suda pravde. Tvrdio je da premijer Benjamin Netanyahu namjerava pridržavati odluke suda i izbjeći ustavnu krizu. Vlada je odbacila presudu Visokog suda iz lipnja kojom se Savjetu Drugog tijela, koje regulira komercijalno emitiranje, dopušta nastavak rada unatoč nedostatku dvotrećinskog kvoruma. Vlada je tvrdila da je odluka suda prekršila zakon iz 1990. koji uređuje Vijeće i naglasila da vladavina prava zahtijeva od svih vlasti, uključujući sud, da se pridržavaju zakonskih odredbi. Opozicijske ličnosti, uključujući bivšeg premijera Naftalija Bennetta, upozorile su da bi prkosa sudu mogla dovesti do kaosa i potkopati nacionalno jedinstvo.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): U članku se prikazuje i stav vlade - tvrdeći da je presuda Visokog suda u suprotnosti s postojećim zakonodavstvom - i zabrinutost opozicije zbog mogućih ustavnih kriza.
★
Neka vijesti ostanu poštene.
ObjectiveNews financiraju čitatelji i bez oglasa je – pristranost vam pokazujemo, ne skrivamo. Podržite neovisno novinarstvo za 5 €/mjesec.
Postani podupiratelj
IL
