Israel’s “Al Jazeera Law” is not intended to protect state security, but to make political use in the name of security
Ahead of the hearing on the petition against the “Al Jazeera Law”, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel appeals to the Supreme Court: The law is as ineffective as it is unconstitutional • “The main activity of the state should focus on removing inflammatory content from social networks” • Al Jazeera contended, among other things, that they cannot defend themselves against the claims against them, which were filed secretly in the presence of the other side only • The state was quick to mention only that the district courts approved the extensions of the orders under the law
By Oren Persico • Translated by Sol Salbe*
The Supreme Court is expected today (13 July) To discuss the petitions filed by the Association for Civil Rights and Al Jazeera against the government and the Knesset with the aim of invalidating the law to prevent a foreign broadcasting organisation from harming the state’s security.
The law, known as the “Al Jazeera Law” (although it has already been applied to other media outlets), was enacted as a temporary measure at the beginning of the war after the October 7 massacre under the pretext of security and on the recommendation of security agencies and forces, but MKs from the coalition on the Knesset’s National Security Committee, where the law was drafted, declared that they see it as nothing more than a stepping stone to a much more draconian law.
MKs from the Likud, Religious Zionism, and Jewish Power said that they would expand the law so that it would allow the Minister of Communications and the Minister of Police to close any media outlet, including Israeli media outlets, on any grounds they wish, without legal oversight or time limits. The Knesset is currently advancing an amendment to the law that would, among other things, allow the Minister of Communications to act to jam signals from satellites reaching Israel and the ability of Israelis to surf the Internet.
The law has been under review by the High Court of Justice since it passed the Knesset in April 2024. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel [ACRI] petitioned against the law, claiming that it was unconstitutional. It was also joined by the Qatari Al Jazeera network, which was one of the first media outlets to be subject to the law and whose broadcasts were restricted.
The association argued, through lawyers Hagar Shechter and Gil Gan-Mor, that the law not only violates freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and the right to information, and this is precisely in a time of war when these rights are more important than ever, but also “tramples on the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the independence of the judiciary, as it includes an ‘overriding clause’, which prevents a court from overturning an illegal decision by virtue of the law.”
Al Jazeera filed a separate petition, through Hussein Abu Hussein and Salim Wakim, with similar claims. The two proceedings were later consolidated.
After an initial hearing on the petition, in which preliminary responses from the state were heard, the Supreme Court issued a conditional order that transferred the burden to the respondents and ordered Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi, Attorney-General [actually equivalent to a Westminster Solicitor-General] Gali Baharav-Miara, the government and the Knesset to explain why the law would not be repealed.
In its response, the state, through lawyer Ran Rosenberg, argued that “the exercise of the powers specified in detail in the temporary order was subject to a series of strict, substantive and procedural conditions,” and therefore there was no need for the High Court to intervene.
As early as last October, it was decided that the hearing on the petition would be held before an expanded panel of seven judges, a clear sign of the importance that the Supreme Court justices attach to the fundamental issues arising from the petition against the law. The hearing was scheduled to take place on 8 April 25, before a panel headed by Supreme Court President Justice Yitzhak Amit, with six other judges at his side. However, the hearing was cancelled shortly before it was to take place to allow for an urgent hearing on the petitions against the dismissal of the Shin Bet chief.
Ahead of the hearing to be held tomorrow, the parties submitted main arguments to complete and update their positions.
“All parties to the petition agree that our issue is legislation that leads to a very serious violation of freedom of expression, freedom of the press and the public’s right to know,” the Association for Civil Rights claims. “The question at issue is whether this violation meets the provisions of the limitation clause. While the respondents insist that the violation of rights is constitutional, their response exposes the nakedness of the temporary provision: the measures set out in it do not meet the proportionality tests.
“The inconsistency between the alleged purpose of the law and the means chosen, the primacy of means that severely violate fundamental rights while their effectiveness is low, and the damage caused by the law, also indicate the purpose of the law, which is not intended to protect the security of the state, but to make political use in the name of security and silence critical voices. In addition, the application of the law revealed that the ambiguity of its language is not in line with the conditions of the express authorisation in the law, set forth in the restriction clause.” The association recalls that in addition to the use of the law against the Qatari channel Al-Jazeera and the Lebanese channel affiliated with Hezbollah, Al-Mayadeen, the state also acted against the world’s largest international news agencies — AP and Reuters, because Al-Jazeera was one of thousands of media outlets that used their services.
In addition, the association attacks the fact that evidence of the dangerousness of the broadcasts of the channels that were closed was invariably presented in closed discussions with only the state representatives being present. “The result is a Kafkaesque process in which a media channel is closed on the grounds that its broadcast content serves a propaganda campaign, which constitutes a catalyst for terrorists, but the state refuses to reveal this content,” it claims. “[…] This is not about revealing sources, revealing security information or the methods of operation of security forces. […] There is no justification for not revealing this broadcast content and letting the opposing side and the general public know what the content is that, according to the state, establishes the need for the most serious violation of freedom of expression, freedom of the press and the public’s right to know.”
The courts that approved the orders, the Association for Civil Rights claims, expanded the interpretation beyond the language of the law, which states that it is possible to prevent the broadcasts of a channel whose broadcast content actually harms the security of the state. Today, it is claimed, the phrase “broadcast content” also includes any other information about the channel, including its ties to terrorist organisations.
“There is no media outlet in the world that does not encounter difficulties in carrying out its media work with the authorities of the place from which it broadcasts or seeks to broadcast, and there is no media organisation that is not also required to make certain compromises in order to ensure its existence and the security of its employees,” the association claims in this context. “There is also no journalist who is not required to maintain contact with dubious elements and even terrorist elements as sources in order to bring information to his viewers. Any attempt to look at such matters through security eyes is dangerous, and it is not for nothing that the legislator deliberately did not go this route.”
The association also emphasises that the law allows the closure of the offices of a channel whose content is broadcast from Israel, but in practice the state acted to close the offices in Israel even though the content claimed to harm state security was not broadcast by an Al-Jazeera journalist in Israel. In addition, the state is working to disrupt the channel’s broadcasts even after its offices in Israel were closed, and in any case all of its content is broadcast outside of Israel, for example from Doha. These facts, the association claims, reveal that the true purpose of the law is punitive and not preventive.
Another claim by the association concerns the effectiveness of the law. According to it, the young audience consumes its content on social networks and instant messaging applications, not on television or the channel’s website, and therefore there is no real point in blocking them. “Given that most of the incitement of young people is done on social networks, it seems that the main activity of the state should focus on removing inciting content from social networks,” the association claims.
Al-Jazeera: Personal Law
Al-Jazeera claims, in the main arguments they submitted to the court ahead of tomorrow’s hearing, that the law is intended to shut down the Qatari channel from the start. “In principle,” Al-Jazeera claims, “laws are supposed to represent a general norm that is relevant to the entire public, or at least to a significant part of it. On the other hand, a personal law that targets a specific person or entity is considered an inappropriate use of the legislative mechanism.”
As mentioned, in the meantime, the law has also been invoked against another channel, Al-Mayadeen.
The Qatari network also contends that the purpose of the law is to prevent exposure to what is happening in the Gaza Strip. “It is no secret that Israeli media channels do not report on what is happening in Gaza and the tens of thousands of dead, wounded, homeless and the human suffering experienced by two million people there, and to the extent that there are any broadcasts, they are on behalf of and under the auspices of the IDF spokesman and are directed at military and security activities,” Al Jazeera claims.
“In practice, due to the prevention of free access by journalists by Israel, the petitioner is the media outlet — almost the only one — that reports the most on what is happening there. Al Jazeera’s reports are around the clock on everything that is happening there: news from the field in real time without censorship by anyone, interviews with war victims and photographs of the corpses, funerals and graves. This is what the political echelon wants to prevent. It is in effect shattering the mirror that reflects the ugly picture of the war. Hence the importance of the petitioner’s continued activity, especially during such a sensitive period, since free speech and journalism that is not mobilised to tell a undeviating story are of paramount importance.”
It should be noted in this context that, contrary to the Qatari network’s contention, its correspondents in Gaza are limited in their critical reporting on Hamas.
Al-Jazeera’s petition was also submitted on behalf of three of the Israeli journalists who worked for it until the offices were closed: Elias Karam, Najuan Samri, and Fatima Khamaisi. The closure of the channel’s offices, it is claimed, violates the freedom of expression of the three and of 13 other Israeli citizens employed by the network.
Al-Jazeera also emphasises that the manner in which the law has been implemented to date makes clear the severe violation of the law, since the requests submitted by the state to the court did not include a detailed factual foundation, that is, information about the content that was broadcast on the channel and which was determined to be a real harm to state security. The state presented the detailed information only behind closed doors. and in the presence of one side only.
“To date, and despite the passage of time, and seven requests to extend the orders, the petitioner has been presented with one broadcast item, called the tank video,” argues Al Jazeera. This refers to the video in which the Israeli Merkava tank was shown, including its vulnerabilities and the way it, and the soldiers inside it, could be hit.
Al Jazeera also ccontends that the hearing process that is carried out time and again before the Minister of Communications makes his decision to extend his orders is a meaningless process, since the Qatari network does not receive any new information about the broadcasts that the government contends have harmed state security.
State: District Court Approved
The state submitted a short document in preparation for tomorrow’s hearing in which it requested to see the main points of the argument in the response to the petitions.
In addition, the state updated that “since the response was submitted, additional decisions have been made regarding the Al Jazeera Channel and the Al Mayadeen Channel, in which the district courts approved the state’s requests by virtue of the order “The time. No appeals were filed with the Honourable Court against these subsequent decisions.”
Translated from Hebrew by Sol Salbe, Middle East News Service
[Tweaked machine translation: Google Translate™]
the7eye Hebrew original:
