In hearing over Army Radio closure, High Court challenges both sides’ claims

At the first hearing on Wednesday over the closure of Army Radio, the High Court of Justice indicated that cabinet ministers’ calls to shutter the station — which they made before an advisory committee issued its recommendations — could amount to political interference, and challenged the government’s attorney to show it was not.

The justices also pressed petitioners opposing the government’s decision to close Army Radio — a public broadcaster established by the government in 1950 as a department of the Israel Defense Forces — over claims that the government did not have the authority to close the station without legislation.

Following the cabinet’s December 2025 decision to close Army Radio, critics have accused the government of targeting the station for insufficiently supportive coverage, while petitioners alleged a series of procedural flaws they said also infringed on freedom of expression and freedom of the press in Israel.

At the end of the hearing, Justice Daphne Barak-Erez said the court would issue a decision on whether to grant a conditional order against the government, requiring it to further justify its decision.

Wednesday’s hearing was marred by an incident in which two members of the viewing public accused the court of “only serving the left” and falsely asserted that Barak-Erez herself had served in Army Radio. The two women were ejected from the courtroom by court security.

Several prominent journalists, including current and former Army Radio broadcasters, were present at the hearing over the station’s closure, which has long been a key player in Israel’s media landscape with a reported one million listeners.

In December last year, the cabinet unanimously approved Defense Minister Israel Katz’s controversial proposal to shut down Army Radio by March 1, 2026. The decision was based on the recommendation of an advisory committee appointed by Katz, which recommended shuttering the station after 19 days of deliberation.

Several organizations petitioned the High Court against the decision, arguing that the government needed to pass legislation to close Army Radio, and that even if a simple cabinet decision was, in theory, sufficient, the process in which the decision was made was severely flawed.

The High Court issued an interim order at the end of December freezing implementation of the decision until it issues a final ruling.

Uri Hess, an attorney for the Movement for Quality Government in Israel — one of the petitioning organizations — asserted that two pieces of legislation regulating the financing of Army Radio and the broadcast frequency it uses meant that the station’s status was anchored in law, and that the station can only be closed through legislation.

But Barak-Erez noted that Army Radio was established by a cabinet resolution, and that the government could therefore be considered entitled to close it in the same way.

Hess argued that Katz’s decision was procedurally flawed, citing problems with how the advisory committee was formed, its Likud-aligned composition and lack of professional journalism expertise, and the manner in which it recommended closing Army Radio.

Justice Alex Stein asserted, however, that there is no law even requiring the establishment of a committee.

“My problem is that there is no support in law for what you are saying; these are very general claims. Where is there a requirement to establish a committee to close Army Radio, given the authority of the Defense Ministry?” asked Stein.

Hess countered by insisting that all government decisions are subject to the standards of administrative law, which includes a stipulation that there be a “factual basis” for a decision. “Otherwise we’re talking about an arbitrary decision,” argued Hess.

Stein also questioned whether the petitioners would be happy with any situation in which Army Radio was shut down. Attorney Yael Grossman for the Israel Press Council replied that the petitioners said they would be satisfied if the decision was made properly and the High Court approved.

“Why does it need the High Court’s approval. The High Court doesn’t manage the army, and doesn’t manage freedom of expression; freedom of expression manages itself,” retorted the judge.

Stein continued to express doubt over the petitioners’ claims throughout the hearing, saying at one stage that if an agency has the authority to establish a particular body, then it also has the authority to close it down.

He nevertheless said that such a decision must be made in an “orderly” manner, and expressed concern over the government’s decision-making process in deciding to shutter Army Radio.

Justice Asher Kasher expressed particular concern over comments made by both Katz and Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi before an advisory committee was established by Katz to give recommendations for changing how Army Radio is run.

In March 2025, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said during a cabinet meeting that he had asked Karhi and Katz to examine the possibility of closing Army Radio.

On the same day, Karhi wrote to Katz saying he was beginning an “important and necessary process: the closure of Army Radio while implementing a right-wing, liberal agenda, and objected to what he described as a situation in which “fighters are returning from the battlefield and have to listen to content that not only does not support them, but sometimes even strongly criticizes their actions.”

On August 8 that same year, Katz established the advisory committee and then commented on X, saying “That which was, will not be,” and that Army Radio was not established by the government “as a platform for personal opinions, many of which attack the IDF.”

Kasher pointed out to David Peter, the attorney representing the government, that Karhi’s letter was entitled “Closing Army Radio,” and that Karhi had asserted the need to close Army Radio before a committee had even been established, before it had issued its recommendations, and before the matter came before the cabinet.

“The communications minister issues a letter to the defense minister, an official letter with the state emblem. Doesn’t this in itself require a conditional order [against the decision to shutter Army Radio],” Kasher asked Peter.

Peter rejected Kasher’s argument, insisting that the position of the ministers did not predetermine anything, and cannot be assumed to have influenced the advisory committee that was eventually established.

“A minister can express himself politically with his political hat, and it doesn’t automatically affect the public committee. The public committee doesn’t owe him anything, and he doesn’t owe the public committee anything,” argued Peter.

Barak-Erez appeared dissatisfied with this contention, however, stating that “a public committee was established, but it received an apparently clear message about what it was supposed to decide. There are clear comments from the government.”

Peter further argued against claims by the petitioners that closing Army Radio required legislation. He said that a much more far-reaching reform to the IDF — the Gideon Multi-Year Plan that was approved in 2016 and which reorganized IDF command, upgraded major weapons systems and cut out unnecessary units — was approved by the government without legislation, and that similarly, Army Radio could be closed by government decision too.