The train has left the station

In my first year as a student at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, I was accepted for a position as a current affairs reporter at the Galei Tzahal station in Jerusalem. The year was 1978, a year of political dramas following the groundbreaking visit of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to Israel: mass demonstrations, stormy Knesset debates, a historic leaders' summit under the auspices of US President Carter, the signing of the Camp David Accords, and the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat. At that time, my mother, Geula Cohen, served as a Knesset member for the Herut movement, of which Begin was the leader, and she fought against the uprooting of the Yamit region settlements established in the Sinai. My political positions were also deeply rooted in the national right, but my family background or my political outlook did not bother my editors at Galei Tzahal. They expected me, like all the station's journalists, to perform my duties professionally and impartially, and so it was.

But about a year later, a new development occurred: during my academic studies, I began to lead student struggles in the spirit of the 'right-wing' worldview. The storms on the Jerusalem campus gained resonance beyond the university borders, and when my name was mentioned in several media publications, my managers announced: 'Either you cover the news, or you create the news. You cannot do both!'. It was clear to all of us that their position was completely justified, and that was the moment I retired from the world of journalism, which I loved very much. I have always kept a warm spot in my heart for the radio station that opened its doors to me, regardless of my ideological breeding ground. I was satisfied with its many achievements, and I felt its distress when it was caught, against its will, in a vortex centered on a legitimate but emotional public debate.

The question of whether there is justification for the existence in the State of Israel of a nationwide broadcasting station subordinate to the Chief of Staff, as a full-fledged military unit, is worthy of principled and in-depth examination. An army in a democratic state is not supposed to manage a popular media outlet, let alone when a non-negligible part of the work of Galei Tzahal personnel, whether they are soldiers in regular service or IDF civilian employees, requires intensive engagement in the political disputes that sow division and polarization in our society.

The Supreme Court ruling, the essence of which was written by Judge Yechiel Kasher, is well-reasoned. Three judges, differing in their legal and personal backgrounds, reached a uniform conclusion on the two core issues discussed before them. According to the judges, the respondents (the government) failed to prove that the closure decision was made based on relevant and substantive considerations, such as the desire to maintain the army's statehood and its distance from the toxic political arena.

First, the ruling determined that the government does indeed have the authority to decide on the closure of Galei Tzahal. It was noted that, contrary to the petitioners' position, this can be done even without the enactment of a specific law by the Knesset. The second conclusion reached by the judges concerned the considerations underlying the government's decision. The legal doctrine established in the Supreme Court decades ago clarified that when a government authority performs an action that can affect freedom of expression, it is not permitted to take into account the content of the expression. This is an invalid consideration.

This is how Judge Daphne Barak-Erez reasoned it:

'Ultimately, one must return and say the obvious — there is no correct legal answer to the question of whether Galei Tzahal broadcasts should continue or not. Alongside this, there is a clear legal answer to the question of whether such a decision can be made based on political considerations and in a biased process. The answer is no'.

Judge Alex Stein, who joined the position that resulted in the cancellation of the decision to close the station, offered the government, with appropriate gentleness, good advice:

'I believe that the closure of Galei Tzahal does not involve a complex procedure. For this reason, and because the station is a significant factor in the broadcast media industry, it would not be excessive to demand from the government that this procedure be free of flaws and extraneous considerations'.

The bottom line of the Supreme Court ruling is clear and balanced: Galei Tzahal will continue to broadcast. However, the way has been paved for a government that wishes to change the situation to promote this, provided that it acts in a manner that does not indicate a desire to silence criticism and impose obedient and submissive public broadcasting.