Israel’s political landscape has fractured over a dispute involving the Second Authority for Television and Radio, with the Netanyahu cabinet explicitly rejecting a recent Supreme Court order.
What is Channel 13?
Channel 13 stands as one of Israel’s primary commercial television networks, serving as a critical source for domestic news and political analysis. Its editorial stance distinguishes it significantly from Channel 14, which typically aligns with Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition.
Historically, Channel 13 has broadcast reporting that challenges the government, investigates allegations of misconduct, and provides airtime to opposition voices. This consistent record of critical journalism has established the station as a central target in the nation’s ongoing political struggle over media independence.
How did the court battle begin?
The legal confrontation originated when Israeli Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi attempted to replace the leadership and council of the Second Authority for Television and Radio. This move was designed to install political allies capable of influencing major decisions regarding Channel 13 and the broader broadcasting market.
The Supreme Court subsequently ruled that the government’s proposed replacement body was unlawful. Following the departure of several council members, the authority no longer possessed the number of members normally required to make binding decisions. However, on June 17, 2026, the Supreme Court ordered the regulator to continue operating despite this shortage.
This ruling effectively prevented the communications minister from using the vacancies to replace the existing regulator with a new body dominated by government appointees. In response, Netanyahu’s cabinet voted to reject the court’s position entirely.
Why this could become a constitutional crisis
Israel lacks a single written constitution; instead, its political system relies on a collection of Basic Laws, court decisions, and institutional conventions that establish governmental powers. Consequently, compliance with Supreme Court decisions is particularly vital to maintaining the rule of law.
A government openly refusing to recognise a ruling from Israel’s highest court risks creating a scenario where 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.
The language used by Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Communications Minister Karhi has intensified fears that the government is testing whether it can disregard judicial decisions it opposes.
The wider campaign against critical media
The dispute over Channel 13 cannot be viewed in isolation from other actions taken by the Netanyahu administration. The government has pursued several measures affecting broadcasters and journalists who have challenged or criticised its policies.
Appointments to KAN’s governing board have also stalled, leaving too few members to approve budgets or appoint permanent leadership.
Furthermore, the Israeli government 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, but foreign journalists have also been prevented from entering Gaza independently, with access generally limited to visits organised and escorted by the Israeli military.
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.
Why the timing matters
Netanyahu has not personally commented publicly on the cabinet declaration concerning the regulator, yet media independence remains particularly sensitive given his legal challenges.
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. However, the consequences extend far beyond one administrative council or the proposed sale of Channel 13 to a group of Israeli technology entrepreneurs.
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. 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.
The battle over Channel 13 is therefore not only about television ownership. 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.