High-profile case9/22/2026

Yashar! Party Demanded the Removal of Smotrich’s AI-Based Election Video

The Yashar! Party petitioned Central Elections Committee Chairman Justice Noam Sohlberg, demanding the removal of an AI-based campaign video by the Religious Zionism Party. Ynet’s report did not state what decision was made regarding the petition.

Key facts

•Petitioner: Yashar! Party
•Respondents: Bezalel Smotrich and the Religious Zionism Party
•Addressee: Central Elections Committee Chairman Justice Noam Sohlberg
•Subject of the petition: removal of an AI-based video from all platforms
•The decision regarding the petition is not stated in the source

What Was Shown in the Video

In the video, which was created using artificial intelligence, Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit, Justice Daphne Barak-Erez and Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara are depicted as participating in political activity against Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. According to the plot, they become involved in a confrontation with law enforcement officials, after which police officers forcibly remove them.

The Yashar! Party’s Demands

Gadi Eisenkot’s party demanded that the video be removed from all platforms. The petition was filed by attorneys Uri Haberman and Adi Marienberg. According to the petitioner, the video attributes political and unlawful conduct that did not actually occur to representatives of the judicial system and uses their official status as part of election propaganda.

The Religious Zionism Party’s Response

Before the petition was filed, a warning letter was sent to the Religious Zionism Party, but it rejected the allegations. The party stated that the video illustrates its view that the heads of the judicial system employ “legal violence” and thwart government policy. The party denies that the video includes a call for violence.

The Decision Has Not Yet Been Stated

The petition was submitted to Justice Noam Sohlberg in his capacity as chairman of the Central Elections Committee. The source does not state the proceeding number, the filing date or the statutory provision on which the demand is based. The outcome of the proceeding and information about whether the video was removed also do not appear in the report.

What this means for you

The dispute illustrates that the use of the likenesses of judges and other public officeholders in election propaganda created using artificial intelligence may be considered by the Central Elections Committee. However, the report does not establish that videos of this kind have already been declared unlawful: the final decision is not included.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings