The Supreme Court admitted: The government can close Galei Tzahal — so why was the decision overturned?

The Supreme Court today (Thursday) unanimously overturned the government's decision to close Galei Tzahal, but within the ruling lies a significant determination: the three judges did not rule that the government exceeded its authority in the very decision to close the station. On the contrary, the court explicitly stated that the government is authorized to make such a decision.

Judges Daphne Barak-Erez, Alex Stein, and Yechiel Kasher rejected the argument that closing Galei Tzahal requires primary legislation. In other words, according to the Supreme Court itself, the government is not required to turn to the Knesset and enact a special law to order the closure of the military station.

If so, why was the decision overturned?

The reason determined by the Supreme Court does not concern the government's authority itself, but rather the motives that, in the judges' opinion, stood behind the exercise of that authority. The ruling stated that the government's decision was made based on an "extraneous and improper consideration": dissatisfaction by the decision-makers that Galei Tzahal's broadcasts, in their feeling, contradict their positions.

The court was factually convinced that this was the consideration behind the decision. The judges added that after an order nisi was issued, the government did not act to prove otherwise.

Supreme Court: The station can be closed

Another point that arises from the ruling is that the judges did not rule out the possibility of closing Galei Tzahal in the future. The three members of the panel clarified, each for their own reasons, that if a decision to close the station is made lawfully and based on substantive considerations, they do not oppose it on its merits. The judges even emphasized that the ruling does not express a position regarding the content of Galei Tzahal's broadcasts.

Judge Yechiel Kasher, who wrote the ruling with the agreement of Barak-Erez and Stein, explained the limits of authority as he sees them:

"It is impossible to accept that a holder of governmental authority should decide that because a broadcaster's words are not to his liking, the broadcaster's 'microphone should be turned off'."

According to him, "A government that acts this way acts in a clearly undemocratic manner, since the cornerstone upon which any democratic government rests is the recognition that the government is not permitted to use its power to silence those whose opinions are not to its liking."

Thus, the dispute in the ruling is not about the question of whether the government is permitted to close Galei Tzahal — the Supreme Court answered this in the affirmative — but whether the considerations that led the government to make the decision were legitimate. The judges determined they were not, and for this reason, ordered its cancellation.