Knesset moves toward making ‘Al Jazeera Law’ permanent, allowing blocking of broadcasts
As bill passes preliminary reading, sponsor Ariel Kallner says: ‘I am in favor of freedom of the press, but not at the cost of the safety of our soldiers and citizens’
Sam Sokol is the Times of Israel's political correspondent. He was previously a reporter for the Jerusalem Post, Jewish Telegraphic Agency and Haaretz. He is the author of "Putin’s Hybrid War and the Jews"
Lawmakers voted 51-36 on Wednesday to approve a preliminary reading of a bill turning the so-called Al Jazeera Law into permanent legislation. The law gives the government powers to prevent foreign news networks from operating in Israel under certain limited circumstances.
Initially passed by the Knesset in April, the current temporary measure provided the prime minister and the communications minister with the authority to order the closure of foreign networks operating in Israel and confiscate their equipment if they have grounds to believe they are “doing real harm to state security.”
Such orders are valid for 45 days but can be renewed for further 45-day periods.
The current law expires on July 31. If it makes it through the three readings in the Knesset required to become law, the new bill would make it permanent and extend the ban’s length to 90-day renewable periods.
The current law was used to close down Qatari news network Al Jazeera’s operations in Israel last month and to temporarily seize equipment belonging to the Associated Press — an act which sparked criticism both within Israel and abroad.
Though Israeli officials have long complained about Al Jazeera’s coverage, which they say is heavily influenced by Hamas and endangers IDF troops in Gaza, in the past they stopped short of taking action. Qatar bankrolled Palestinian construction projects in the Gaza Strip prior to the war, which were seen by all sides as a means of staving off conflict.
The law empowers the communications minister to order “content providers” to cease broadcasting the channel in question, order the channel’s Israeli offices to be shuttered, order the channel’s equipment confiscated, and order the channel’s website to be blocked.
It is the communications minister who can issue such orders, with the approval of the prime minister and the security cabinet, and after a professional position paper has been presented to the prime minister and the communications minister by security services detailing the “factual foundations” of allegations that the outlet is causing damage to Israel’s national security.
In a tweet following the vote, Likud MK Ariel Kallner, the bill’s sponsor, stated that his “goal first and foremost is to protect our soldiers fighting in the field and at the front and to prevent a hostile media body inside Israel.”
“I am in favor of freedom of the press and media but not at the cost of the safety of our dear soldiers and citizens,” he stated.
The new bill’s explanatory notes said it would also give the communications minister “the authority to also order the halting of the broadcasts of a foreign channel..if he believes…that it is causing a real harm to the security of the state.” It was unclear how this differed from current legislation. A spokesman for Kallner did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Speaking with The Times of Israel, Gil Gan-Mor, who runs the Association for Civil Rights in Israel’s departments of Civil and Social Rights, said that the new authority granted to the minister was likely connected with efforts to block satellite signals, but that this change would only become clear as the bill advances through the legislative process.
“Now its symbolic because you can watch [banned content] on private satellite systems, YouTube or on social media. So they want things that only totalitarian countries want — to block communications,” he said.
“It’s a very bad thing. This law, to our minds, is not constitutional as a temporary order and clearly when it becomes a permanent law the violation of freedom of speech becomes permanent.”
Reviewing petitions against the law, the High Court of Justice released a conditional order earlier this month requiring a government response, by August 5, to why the current law should not be invalidated, Gan-Mor noted. He called it a “kind of gesture from the court to the government not to extend the temporary order.”
Jeremy Sharon contributed to this report.
