A recent opinion piece by Prof. Moshe Cohen-Eliya in 'Maariv' offers sharp criticism of the Israeli judicial system's conduct regarding media and senior appointments. The author focuses on a series of judicial and procedural decisions which he claims constitute an attempt by the legal system to preserve political and public consciousness power, while creating obstacles for the elected branch. At the center of the criticism is the High Court's ruling on IDF Radio (Galatz), which has sparked a wide legal and public debate over whether government decisions to close broadcasting bodies due to political bias are legitimate or improper considerations.
In his article, Prof. Cohen-Eliya notes that Justice Yechiel Kasher distinguished in his ruling between "statehood" (mamlakhtiyut) and dissatisfaction with political broadcast content. According to the author, there is an internal contradiction in this approach, as it is difficult to separate the state nature of a military station from claims that it is clearly identified with the positions of a specific political camp. Another issue raised in the text concerns how the court interprets legal requirements, citing Section 21 of the Second Authority Law.
The author argues that the High Court effectively allows councils to continue operating despite incomplete composition to complete regulatory procedures, such as media transactions—a move he claims shows interpretive flexibility serving existing power centers. Furthermore, the issue of extending the tenure of Yochpaz at the Galatz station is mentioned, with the author fearing that the court might use its authority to allow an exceptional managerial continuity instead of leaving the decision to the political echelon.
Prof. Cohen-Eliya criticizes the increased use of procedural arguments as a tool to prevent government policy moves. He compares the current strict adherence to procedures with past cases, such as the appointment of the Chief of Staff by a transitional government, which he claims did not receive the same level of judicial scrutiny. In a broader context, the article suggests that the struggle over media in Israel is not disconnected from the aspiration to control public consciousness, and that the elected branch is expected to encounter significant legal difficulties in any attempt to change market structure or influence public funding of media outlets.
The article seeks to highlight the built-in tension between the judiciary and the executive regarding media policy, expressing concern that the legal system is adopting an approach that restricts the government's ability to fulfill its mandate in the media sector.