High Court to hear petitions against IPBC compromise deal
Finance Minister Kahlon postulates that the High Court of Justice will reject the arrangement he reached with PM Netanyahu; Attorney General Mandelblit rejects criticism against his involvement in the deal.
The Journalists’ Association filed a petition to the High Court of Justice on Monday following the new compromise outline on the fate of the IPBC, according to which the IPBC’s news division will close and a separate news division will be opened in its stead.
The Journalists’ Association has asked the court to cancel the outline, including the separation between the IPBC and the news division, and prevent it from becoming law. The Association also demanded that the prime minister, the finance minister and the acting communications minister cease their interference with the identity of the IPBC directors and journalists.
Labor Party member Eldad Yaniv also petitioned the High Court of Justice against the agreement, saying that Netanyahu should refrain from dealing with the matter since he resigned from his position as communications minister. Supreme Court Justice Yitzchak Amit ordered the state to respond to the request for an interim injunction by next Sunday.
Meanwhile, the Histadrut Labor Federation announced a general labor dispute on Monday, claiming that "the employees of the IBA and the IPBC are being abused, while groups of workers are pit against each other."
Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit said he is determined that the establishment of the IPBC will reflect the political independence of the existing Public Broadcasting Law.
Sources close to the attorney general dismissed the attacks on him, which claimed he had enabled the elimination of public broadcasting when he prepared Netanyahu's outline, and failed to prevent Netanyahu from meddling with the IPBC due to the conflicts of interest that had forced him to leave the Ministry of Communications to begin with.
According to his aides, the attorney general noted two red lines and made it clear that if they were not respected, he would declare the law unconstitutional and would refrain from defending it at the High Court.
Sources close to the attorney general clarified that “the attorney general attended the final deliberations in order to ensure the decisions concerning the bill proposal or the outline were legal.”
Deputy Attorney General Avi Licht criticized the outline of the compromise, with claims being made that following his criticism, he was excluded from it.
Contrary to Licht’s reservations concerning the agreement, Deputy AG Raz Nizri, State Attorney Shai Nitzan, and the heads of the High Court of Justice's Petitions Department, supported the agreement.
According to sources, "there are different views between jurists and they are legitimate, but at the end of the say, only one makes the decision and that is the AG.”
(Translated and edited by N. Elias)
