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 poročil
The Times of IsraelNeodvisenKonservativnoDejstva 85Objektivnost 75pred 3 dneviIzraelska vlada je razglasila, da ne bo sledila sodbi Vrhovnega sodišča, ki je Svetu druge oblasti omogočila delovanje kljub pomanjkanju potrebnih dveh tretjin kvoruma. To je prvič v zgodovini Izraela, da je vlada odkrito zavrnila spoštovanje takšne sodne odločitve, kar je povzročilo zaskrbljenost zaradi ustavne krize.
Ocena pristranskosti (Konservativno): V članku je kljubovanje visokega sodišča s strani vlade označeno kot nujna trditev pravne države, pri čemer se za kritiko pravosodja uporabljajo močni izrazi, kot so "potiskajo po zakonu" in "pijani z močjo". V članku je poudarjeno stališče vlade, da varuje pravno celovitost, medtem ko opozicijo prikazuje
Zakaj te ocene (Dejstva 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 IsraelNeodvisenProgresivnoDejstva 85Objektivnost 70pred 3 dnevi AG: Obljuba vlade, da ne bo ubogala vrhovnega sodišča, spodkopava temeljna načela pravne državeIzraelska vlada je razglasila, da namerava zanemariti nedavno sodbo Vrhovnega sodišča v zvezi z delovanjem Sveta druge oblasti, regulativnega organa, ki nadzira komercialno radiodifuzijo. Ta ukrep, ki je prvič, da je vlada odkrito zavrnila spoštovanje takšne sodne odločitve, je sprožil pomemben odziv predsednika Isaaca Herzoga, generalnega pravobranilca Gali Baharav-Miara in voditeljev opozicije. Trdijo, da stališče vlade spodkopava pravno državo in ogroža demokratične institucije.
Ocena pristranskosti (Progresivno): V članku je zavrnitev vrhovnega sodišča označena kot napad na pravno državo in demokracijo, v skladu z levičarsko kritiko presežkov izvršilnega organa.
Zakaj te ocene (Dejstva 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.
HaaretzNeodvisen🔒KonservativnovčerajČlanek poroča o poglabljanju ustavne krize v Izraelu, saj je minister za pravosodje pozval Kneset, naj ne upošteva odločbe vrhovnega sodišča glede glasovanja o imenovanju državnega nadzornega psa.
Ocena pristranskosti (Konservativno): Članek obravnava poziv ministra za pravosodje, naj se upremo vrhovnemu sodišču, kot legitimen izziv sodnemu presežku, ki se ujema s konzervativnimi pogledi, ki poudarjajo zakonodajno suverenost.
The Jerusalem PostNeodvisenProgresivnopredvčerajšnjimOpozicijski vodja Yair Lapid je obtožil izraelsko vlado, da namerno nasprotuje sodbi vrhovnega sodišča o sestavi drugega avtoritativnega sveta kot del strategije za manipulacijo prihajajočih volitev. Lapid je trdil, da namerava vlada spodkopati sodni nadzor, kar bi ji lahko omogočilo, da odloži ali zmede volitve s trditvijo varnostnih groženj ali da se razglasi za zmagovalca brez pravnega sredstva. Opozoril je, da bi zavrnitev avtoritete sodišča lahko privedla do ustavne krize in omogočila vladi, da ne upošteva demokratičnih procesov.
Ocena pristranskosti (Progresivno): V članku je zavrnitev vlade, da bi upoštevala sodbo Vrhovnega sodišča, označena kot namerno prizadevanje za manipulacijo z volitvami, z uporabo močnega jezika, kot so "kraditev", "prikvarjanje" in "stroj za zastrupitev".
HaaretzNeodvisen🔒Konservativnopredvčerajšnjim Ustavna kriza? Zakaj je izraelska vlada odprto kljubovala vrhovnemu sodiščuV članku se razpravlja o morebitni ustavni krizi v Izraelu, saj vlada odkrito nasprotuje sodbi vrhovnega sodišča. Sodišče je predhodno odločilo, da so nekateri varnostni ukrepi nezakoniti, vendar jih je vlada kljub tej odločitvi še naprej izvajala.
Ocena pristranskosti (Konservativno): V članku so dejanja vlade označeni kot nujna za nacionalno varnost, kar pomeni, da je sodna odločba preveč previdna ali politično motivirana.
The Times of IsraelNeodvisenSredinapred 3 dnevi Minister vztraja, da bo premier ubogal sodbo vrhovnega sodišča, ne išče ustavne krizeMinister za kulturo in šport Miki Zohar je zanikal trditve, da nedavna resolucija izraelske vlade pomeni izjavo o nameri, da bi se uprla sodbi vrhovnega sodišča. Trdil je, da namerava premier Benjamin Netanjahu spoštovati sodbo sodišča in se izogniti ustavni krizi. Vlada je zavrnila junijsko sodbo vrhovnega sodišča, ki je Svetu druge oblasti, ki ureja komercialno radiodifuzijo, omogočila nadaljevanje delovanja, kljub pomanjkanju dvotretjinskega kvoruma. Vlada je trdila, da je odločitev sodišča kršila zakon iz leta 1990, ki ureja Svet, in poudarila, da pravna država zahteva, da se vse oblasti, vključno s sodiščem, držijo pravnih določb. Opozicijski liki, vključno z nekdanjim predsednikom vlade Naftalijem Bennettom, so opozorili, da bi lahko izpodbijanje sodišča privedlo do kaosa in spodkopalo nacionalno enotnost.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): V članku so predstavljeni stališča vlade, ki trdi, da je sodba vrhovnega sodišča v nasprotju z obstoječo zakonodajo, in zaskrbljenost opozicije zaradi morebitnih ustavnih kriz.
★
Ohranimo novice poštene.
ObjectiveNews financirajo bralci in je brez oglasov – pristranskost vam pokažemo, ne skrijemo. Podprite neodvisno novinarstvo za 5 €/mesec.
Postani podpornik
IL
![[Video] Branko Grims: Delam točno to, kar sem obljubil svojim volivcem! (Vroča tema, 4. 7. 2026)](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=slovenskenovice.delo.si%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F20260702%2F3671246.width-660.format-webp.webp&w=3840&q=75&output=webp&we)
