Israel is facing an escalating constitutional confrontation after Benjamin Netanyahu’s government declared that it would challenge a Supreme Court ruling involving the country’s commercial television regulator.
While the disagreement may initially appear to concern technical rules about appointments and voting numbers, the issue ultimately reaches much further. At stake is the future of Israel’s Channel 13, a major commercial television network known for broadcasting investigations and commentary critical of Netanyahu and his government.
The dispute has therefore raised a much larger question: is the government merely fighting over broadcasting regulations, or is it attempting to gain greater influence over one of Israel’s remaining major critical news outlets?
What is Channel 13?
Channel 13 is one of Israel’s leading commercial television networks and a significant source of domestic news and political reporting.
Unlike Channel 14, which generally supports Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition, Channel 13 has frequently aired reporting that challenges the government, examines alleged misconduct and gives airtime to opposition voices.
That history has made the station an important target in Israel’s broader political struggle over the media.
The current controversy could affect whether the proposed sale of Channel 13 to a group of Israeli technology entrepreneurs receives regulatory approval. It could also affect whether pro-Netanyahu Channel 14 continues receiving benefits and exemptions granted to smaller broadcasters.
How did the court battle begin?
Commercial television and radio in Israel are overseen by the Council of the Second Authority for Television and Radio.
Israeli Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi attempted to replace the authority’s council and leadership. Such a change could have allowed the government to install political allies capable of influencing major decisions affecting Channel 13 and the wider broadcasting market.
The Supreme Court ruled that the government’s proposed replacement body was unlawful.
After several council members departed, the authority no longer had the number of members normally required to make decisions. However, on June 17, 2026, the Supreme Court ordered the regulator to continue operating despite the shortage.
The ruling prevented the communications minister from using the vacancies to replace the existing regulator with a new body dominated by government appointees.
Netanyahu’s cabinet subsequently voted to reject the court’s position. Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Communications Minister Karhi said the ruling represented judicial overreach and indicated that decisions made by the regulator under the ruling would not be recognised.
Karhi declared that future decisions made by the authority would be effectively worthless, while Levin argued that courts must follow laws passed by parliament.
Why this could become a constitutional crisis
Israel does not have a single written constitution. Its political system instead relies on a collection of Basic Laws, court decisions and institutional conventions establishing the powers of government.
That makes compliance with Supreme Court decisions particularly important.
A government openly refusing to recognise a ruling from Israel’s highest court risks creating a situation in which different institutions claim the authority to decide which laws and decisions remain valid.
Israeli President Isaac Herzog warned that refusing to comply with Supreme Court rulings crossed a red line. Opposition leader Yair Lapid described the confrontation as one of the most serious constitutional crises in Israel’s history. Former prime minister Naftali Bennett warned that ignoring court decisions could lead to disorder and the disintegration of the state’s institutions.
Cabinet Secretary Yossi Fuchs has disputed the suggestion that the government is simply refusing to obey the court. He said ministers were expressing strong disagreement and intended to use legal mechanisms to overturn the ruling.
However, the language used by Levin and Karhi has intensified fears that the government is testing whether it can disregard judicial decisions it opposes.
The wider campaign against critical media
The Channel 13 battle cannot be viewed in isolation.
Netanyahu’s government has pursued several measures affecting broadcasters and journalists that have challenged or criticised its policies.
Legislation has been advanced that would dismantle the protected funding structure of Israel’s public broadcaster, KAN, potentially forcing it to depend on annual government budget decisions.
Appointments to KAN’s governing board have also stalled, leaving too few members to approve budgets or appoint permanent leadership.
The Israeli government has shut down Al Jazeera’s domestic operations and moved to close Army Radio, arguing that the military-funded station had become overly critical of the Israel Defense Forces. The Supreme Court has so far blocked the Army Radio closure.
Foreign journalists have also been prevented from entering Gaza independently. Access has generally been limited to visits organised and escorted by the Israeli military, with reporting subject to military censorship.
Individually, the government presents these actions as responses to security, regulatory or funding concerns. Collectively, however, they show growing pressure on media organisations that operate outside the government’s preferred political narrative.
Channel 13 and Channel 14
The contrasting treatment of Channel 13 and Channel 14 has become a central part of the controversy.
Channel 13 is widely regarded as a government critic. Its reporting has included investigations involving Netanyahu and members of his coalition.
Channel 14 is an ultranationalist broadcaster that generally supports Netanyahu. It has promoted claims that Israel’s judiciary and law-enforcement institutions are unfairly targeting the prime minister.
Channel 14 has also received regulatory benefits and exemptions through its classification as a smaller broadcaster. The regulator involved in the current court battle may eventually decide whether those advantages should continue.
This creates an obvious political conflict.
A regulator protected from government interference could approve ownership arrangements designed to preserve Channel 13’s independence while reviewing benefits enjoyed by Channel 14.
A regulator controlled by government allies could potentially make very different decisions.
Why the timing matters
The confrontation is unfolding shortly before Israel is expected to hold a national election.
Opinion polling cited by Reuters has indicated that Netanyahu’s coalition could struggle to retain power. The battle over media regulation therefore comes at a moment when television coverage may play a major role in shaping public attitudes toward the government, the war, Netanyahu’s corruption trial and the failures surrounding the October 7 attack.
Netanyahu has not personally commented publicly on the cabinet declaration concerning the regulator.
However, media independence remains particularly sensitive because two of the three criminal cases against him involve allegations that regulatory or political favours were offered to media owners in exchange for favourable coverage. Netanyahu denies wrongdoing and describes the prosecution as a politically motivated campaign against him.
More than a television ownership dispute
The immediate argument concerns the legal authority of a broadcasting regulator and its ability to make decisions without its normal membership threshold.
But the consequences extend far beyond one administrative council.
The government’s actions could influence who controls Channel 13, whether one of Israel’s major critical broadcasters retains its editorial independence and whether a strongly pro-government competitor continues receiving regulatory advantages.
More fundamentally, the confrontation will test whether the Israeli government accepts the authority of the country’s highest court when that court blocks its political objectives.
Governments have the right to dispute judicial rulings and seek to change laws through legitimate parliamentary processes. That is different from declaring that a court decision will simply not be recognised.
Once a government claims the power to decide which court rulings deserve obedience, the separation between executive authority, independent regulation and the rule of law begins to collapse.
The battle over Channel 13 is therefore not only about television.
It is about whether Israeli journalists can continue investigating those in power, whether regulators can operate without political control and whether the government remains bound by court decisions it dislikes.
A democracy does not prove its commitment to press freedom by protecting supportive broadcasters. It proves it by allowing critical journalists and media organisations to operate without political punishment or interference.