chapotraphouse

Opinion | The Economic Theory That Explains Why Americans Are So Mad - The New York Times

Archive.Today didn't work. The page is blank.

Additionally, MK Sukkot suggests expanding the powers of the Minister of Communications to more effectively block the channel’s broadcasts and extending the law’s validity, currently defined as a temporary order, beyond the period of war and effectively without limitation.

The Law to Prevent Harm from Foreign Broadcasting Bodies to National Security, known as the "Al-Jazeera Law," passed in the Knesset about two months ago. Consequently, Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi ordered restrictions on the Qatari channel Al-Jazeera's broadcasts in Israel. The minister's directive was approved this week by the district court, which, based on confidential material presented, determined that the channel's broadcasts significantly endanger national security.

However, even the state admits that the law's effectiveness is limited, if it has any effect at all, in preventing security harm. Under the current law, the Minister of Communications, after approval from the Prime Minister and the government or the cabinet, can order the blocking of internet access to the channel's websites deemed to pose a significant threat to national security, remove the channel from cable and satellite broadcasts, and confiscate the channel’s equipment used for broadcasting in Israel.

Nevertheless, those who still wish to watch Al-Jazeera broadcasts can simply go to YouTube or social networks or watch via a private satellite dish, as most viewers in the Arab community in Israel already do. Also, the ban on broadcasting from Israel does not significantly limit the channel’s broadcasts, as its offices are in Qatar, and it broadcasts from many other countries worldwide.

The legislators have already clarified that the alleged security threat posed by Al-Jazeera broadcasts was never their primary concern. Coalition members of the Knesset's National Security Committee, who drafted the law, led by committee chairman Tzvika Fogel (Otzma Yehudit) and Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi (Likud), declared their intention to enact a law that would not rely on a security opinion but would depend solely on their discretion, sufficient to shut down any media outlet, not necessarily a foreign one, without judicial oversight or time limitation.

MK Sukkot was one of the coalition members in the National Security Committee pushing for such draconian legislation. However, the Attorney General’s office and committee member MK Gilad Kariv fought this intention, forcing a compromise on a relatively moderate law compared to their aspirations.

To persuade Likud, Otzma Yehudit, and Religious Zionism MKs to vote for the bill's approval for a second and third reading, committee chairman MK Fogel told them the main goal was to pass any government law so that later private bills could be introduced to radicalize it. "We have put a foot in the door," Fogel described it.

Minister Karhi did not wait for the current Knesset session to begin and for the introduction of the proposed bills and has already started using the existing law to act against Israeli journalists and foreign media outlets not suspected of harming national security: Karhi sent a warning to all media systems in Israel that anyone in contact with Al-Jazeera would face criminal charges – despite not having such authority under the law; confiscated equipment from studios in Nazareth; sent inspector teams to follow media crews across the country; and closed a broadcasting position and confiscated broadcasting equipment of the American news agency AP.

This week, the district court approved Minister Karhi’s orders against Al-Jazeera but shortened their duration by ten days due to administrative failure by the minister and his office. Immediately afterward, MK Fogel announced that he had placed a proposal on the Knesset table to allow the closure of foreign channels harming national security without any judicial oversight.

While MK Fogel's proposal is not yet listed on the Knesset website, MK Sukkot did not wait for the legal proceedings and had already submitted his own proposal to the Knesset. According to MK Sukkot’s proposal, the Minister of Communications could also "instruct government bodies within their jurisdiction to stop the channel's broadcasts."

Such general wording would ostensibly allow the minister to instruct the Cyber Directorate, for example, to intercept Al-Jazeera’s signal so it cannot be received in Israel in any way or block social network sites like YouTube or Facebook where the channel’s broadcasts can be received.

Another change proposed by MK Sukkot is adding a clause stating that "a person engaged in the broadcasting activities of a foreign channel, after an order has been issued under Section 2(a) [meaning, after it has been determined that the channel significantly harms national security and it was decided to restrict it], is subject to six months’ imprisonment."

This clause would allow for criminal prosecution not only of the channel’s employees who insist on continuing their journalistic work without offices or confiscated equipment. The criminal danger would loom over professionals who help the channel broadcast from Israel, employees of international news agencies providing raw materials to the channel, and even interviewees who dare to be interviewed by the channel from their homes via software like Zoom (it should be noted that over the years, IDF spokespersons and Israeli politicians have been interviewed on the channel).

The third change proposed by MK Sukkot concerns the validity of the law, currently defined as a temporary order that will expire with the end of the state of war declared after the October 7 massacre. According to the MK's proposal, "This law will remain in effect until the end of the state of emergency declaration, according to Section 38 of the Basic Law: The Government from May 20, 2024."

This refers not to the special situation declared on October 7 with the outbreak of the Gaza war but to the state of emergency that has existed continuously in Israel since 1948 and is renewed annually. In other words, according to MK Sukkot's proposal, the law would have no expiration limit and could be used by the Minister of Communications even after the war ends.

The Jerusalem Journalists Association published a response to the proposed law: "MK Sukkot's horrifying proposal must be immediately removed from the agenda! If, God forbid, the proposal is accepted, it will place Israel in the pariah club of countries such as North Korea and Russia, where journalists are imprisoned and even worse! The Journalists Association will fight this proposal with all its might."