The High Court of Justice on Tuesday pressed the state over whether the government’s decision to close Army Radio was really about ending an unusual military-run broadcaster, or whether it was driven by anger over the station’s content.
A decision will be issued at a later date.
The hearing, before Justices Dafna Barak-Erez, Alex Stein, and Yechiel Kasher, came after the court froze Galatz’s closure and ordered the government to explain why its December decision should not be canceled.
At the center of the case is a committee appointed by Defense Minister Israel Katz in 2025 to examine Galatz’s future. Galatz is formally an IDF station, but for decades has also operated as one of Israel’s main national news and current-affairs broadcasters.
Katz’s committee recommended either closing Galatz’s news division or shutting the station entirely. Katz chose the second option, and the government approved it on December 22, ordering the station to stop broadcasting by March 1. The court later froze the decision.
The petitioners argue that the committee was not neutral, but was used to justify a decision Katz had already made. They say some members had publicly expressed sharp views against Galatz before being appointed.
The government and Katz, represented by attorney David Peter after Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara refused to defend the decision, rejected that claim. Peter said the government had authority to close the station and was not required to appoint a committee, but did so because it wanted to act “by the book.”
Barak-Erez pushed back, saying that even if the government did not have to establish a committee, it could not rely on one that was flawed. “The fact that something was not needed in the first place does not mean it can be conducted defectively,” she said.
The justices repeatedly returned to whether there were signs that the closure was motivated by the station’s political content.
“There is apparently evidence of statements about the need to close Galatz because of its political content,” Kasher said.
He asked whether it would be lawful for a party to run on a platform claiming there was too much left-wing content in the media, appoint a minister, and have that minister immediately move to close Galatz. “Far from it,” Kasher said.
Barak-Erez noted that Katz’s committee had only six members, meaning each vote mattered. “It is not a committee of 200 people,” she said. “Every vote is significant.”
Kasher said petitioners pointed to two committee members who allegedly expressed strong views on the exact question before them. Their position, he said, was essentially that “Galatz should be closed” because “we are sick of these leftists,” and then a committee was appointed with two members who thought exactly that.
Barak-Erez said a “firm and predetermined view” on the matter was problematic. “We are not discussing whether the decision to close Galatz is right or wrong,” she said. “We are discussing the legality of the decision.”
Justice didn't accept argument over gov't not being able to close Galatz without Knesset
The justices did not appear to accept the argument that the government can never close Galatz without Knesset legislation. Stein said the government has the right “at some point” to decide to close the station.
Still, the court appeared troubled by the claim that this decision may have been tainted by improper considerations.
Peter said the real issue was whether the IDF should operate a station that broadcasts political and current-affairs content. He argued there was no evidence that the cabinet acted out of improper motives.
Aner Hellman, director of the High Court Department at the State Attorney’s Office, represented the attorney-general’s position against the government. He said Galatz is not a regular military unit that can simply be opened or closed, but a central media outlet reaching roughly one million listeners a day.
Closing a media outlet because the government dislikes its lawful content, Hellman argued, raises serious free-speech concerns, especially ahead of elections. He also said the committee gave the public only nine days to respond, in late August and during wartime, despite receiving 300 submissions.
Boaz Ben-Tzur, representing the Galatz workers’ committee, said the closure had been marked in advance and that the government had ignored an earlier committee that recommended keeping Galatz inside the IDF while reforming it.
The workers’ committee and the Histadrut also argue that the decision would dismiss civilian IDF employees without consultation or a closure plan.
Barak-Erez questioned the short two-month transition period, saying it did not appear suited to closing a station operating for more than 70 years.
By the end of the hearing, the question appeared narrow: whether the government made this decision lawfully, for proper reasons, and without trying to silence a broadcaster whose content it disliked.