The Ministry of Communications, headed by Minister Shlomo Karhi, has submitted for public comment a memorandum to extend the validity of the Law to Prevent a Foreign Broadcasting Body from Harming State Security. The law is intended to address harm to state security, but in practice, the remedies it offers are ineffective, and its real purpose, as declared by coalition members of the Knesset, is to establish infrastructure for action against Israeli media outlets that are not favored by the government.

According to the law, if the IDF, Shin Bet, or Mossad determine that a foreign broadcasting channel is causing substantial harm to state security, the Minister of Communications can order the confiscation of its equipment and blocking of its sites. However, the blocking of websites can be easily bypassed and does not prevent the reception of broadcasts on social networks or YouTube.

The Minister can also order cable and satellite companies to remove the channel from the channel packages they offer to viewers, but most television viewers of channels whose broadcasts have been restricted to date do so using a private satellite dish.

The law is known by its nickname "Al Jazeera Law," but it is not limited to the Qatari network and grants authority to restrict broadcasts of any foreign broadcasting channel. The law was approved in April 2024 as a temporary provision, and its text was made stricter in November.

The law is not a dead letter. Since its enactment, broadcasts of Qatar's Al Jazeera and Lebanon's Al-Mayadeen have been restricted repeatedly, after one-sided discussions in which classified material was presented, and with the court harshly criticizing the broadcasts of these channels and determining that they indeed cause significant harm to state security.

The current temporary provision is expected to expire at the end of May, and therefore the Ministry of Communications has submitted a memorandum to extend the law for another six months, until the end of November this year.

Alongside the government law, which was formulated in consultation with the Attorney General, the National Security Committee, chaired by MK Zvika Fogel (Otzma Yehudit), has been discussing private bills by coalition members who sought to make the law even more draconian. Among other things, it was proposed to cancel the requirement for judicial oversight and grant the Minister of Communications authority to disrupt all internet traffic or order the Cyber Authority to damage satellite signals broadcast to Israel.

Ideas of this kind were not included in the government memorandum, and in fact, this time the memorandum does not include any tightening of the law's text but only changes the validity of the temporary provision.

Exceptional authority for the Minister of Communications

The Association for Civil Rights, which petitioned against the law, responded with firm opposition to the extension of the temporary provision.

"The temporary provision violates the core of the constitutional right to freedom of expression and the freedom of the press derived from it. It grants the Minister of Communications exceptional authority to impose sanctions on a media body in a sweeping manner, which is not focused on a specific journalist or news item," wrote Attorney Hagar Shechter on behalf of the Association.

The Association recalls that in response to their petition, the state argued that the temporary provision meets the proportionality tests, among other things, because it is temporary. "If so," the Association states, "extending the validity of the temporary provision establishes its unconstitutionality, even according to the state itself."

According to the Association, "After more than a year since the enactment of the temporary provision, it is time to examine whether it is useful at all. In our opinion, the answer is clearly negative. The temporary provision has not contributed to state security at all. If there were a few broadcasts that, in the test of outcome, harmed security, they are broadcast to the whole world anyway, and there is no benefit in blocking them from the citizens of the state alone. It is also completely clear that the law has no effect whatsoever on the willingness of citizens and residents of the state to harm its security, and the law has no measurable impact that indicates any effectiveness.

"Against this, over the past year it has been proven again and again that the right to information of Israeli citizens and residents is harmed by the law, and access to international media outlets that have special and exclusive access to what is happening in Gaza is blocked. This was particularly clear during the release of the hostages, when documentation and reporting on the release process was done almost exclusively by Al Jazeera, and echoed on other networks. Essential information and knowledge were blocked from the public in Israel, particularly in light of the continuation of the war, and the fact that foreign journalists are prevented from entering Gaza.

"On the other hand, the damage of the law is clear. It accustoms the public to a situation where broadcasting channels from the world to Israel can be blocked and attempts made to disrupt the flow of information reaching citizens of the state, and to prohibit broadcasting bodies from reporting on what is happening in Israel and the territories. The very habituation to this is dangerous. The government does not have to cooperate with certain networks, does not have to invite their reporters to official events, and it can criticize their broadcasting methods, but the attempt to prevent citizens of the state from being exposed to the broadcasts of a media body that the whole world watches, like Al Jazeera, and to prevent reporting on what is happening in the country, characterizes undemocratic societies."

The Association further argues that the purpose of the law is to prevent the public from accessing a critical perspective on what is happening in the region, including in the Gaza Strip, in order to establish a "one-sided narrative that serves the interests of the government." In this context, the Association argues that "the temporary provision and the amendments proposed in it cannot be separated from the media coup that the government is promoting."