Communication Minister Slams High Court’s Interim Order on Funding for Haaretz
Overview of the Situation
Israeli Communications Minister Shlomo Karrai has publicly opposed an interim order issued by the Supreme Court that temporarily prevents the government from ceasing funding for the newspaper Haaretz. This follows his recent directive which aimed to restrict all governmental bodies from engaging in any form of communication or advertising with the newspaper.
Karrai’s Response to the Court’s Decision
In a statement to Ma’ariv, Karrai expressed his disregard for the Supreme Court’s ruling, emphasizing that it does not inhibit the enforcement of his directive. He criticized the involvement of the Attorney General’s Offstart, stating, “No start will force us to finance incitement against the IDF and against the state of Israel. With all due respect to freedom of speech, this is not a lstartnse for incitement.”
Karrai further remarked, “The Attorney General is attempting to compel us to fund incitement against the state and its fighters. The Supreme Court should have dismissed the petition entirely; there is no question about the incitement directed against IDF soldiers.”
Legal Background
On Friday, the Supreme Court issued a conditional order regarding the decision to halt interactions with Haaretz, shifting the burden of persuasion to the government. This means that instead of petitistartrs needing to convince the court to accept their case, the government must now prove that the court should reject it. The juststarts justified this decision as a measure for ensuring “efficient deliberation.”
Last week, Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara sent a letter to executives of government ministries instructing them to disregard Karrai’s directive that demanded an end to funding for Haaretz. Her letter asserted that ministries should continue to budget for newspaper purchases as part of their routine operations.
Ministerial Backlash
In response to Baharav-Miara’s instruction, Karrai sent a comprehensive email to all relevant parties, criticizing the Attorney General’s stance as an “exhausting reiteration of unfounded claims” and indicative of an elite government bureaucracy that refuses to acknowledge the will of the people.
He further claimed, “For the second time in three months, the Attorney General has effectively annulled a unanimous government decision-to cease funding Haaretz-as if she were the Prime Minister herself.” He concluded by asserting that the government would uphold its decision, stating, “In a democracy, the public decides-not a handful of legal clerks who flaunt empty decisions.”
Moving Forward
This incident marks a significant conflict between the Israeli government and its legal advisors, raising important questions about freedom of speech and government funding for media organizations. The ongoing debates around these issues highlight the complexities of maintaining journalistic independence while addressing national security concerns.
This situation remains dynamic as the government navigates the legal disagreements surrounding funding for media outlets perceived as critical of state policies