Netanyahu to Pay NIS 29,000 for Use of State Resources
The chairman of the Central Elections Committee, Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg, ruled that Benjamin Netanyahu used state resources for election propaganda. The prime minister was ordered to personally pay the petitioners in several petitions a total of NIS 29,000 in legal costs.
Key facts
- •Body: Central Elections Committee
- •Chairman: Justice Noam Sohlberg
- •Number of petitions filed: 6
- •Granted in full or in part: 5
- •Legal costs: NIS 29,000
- •Legal basis: Election Propaganda Methods Law
What the Committee Considered
Six petitions were filed against Netanyahu concerning posts on his official social media accounts. Five were granted in full or in part. The petitioners include the Choosing Israel nonprofit organization, but the source does not identify all the participants in the proceedings.
The Video from the Military Post
One of the disputed issues was a video filmed during Netanyahu’s visit to an IDF post in southern Lebanon. Sohlberg noted that the segments relating to the stated lawful purpose—strengthening the soldiers’ fighting spirit—were removed in editing, while the parts addressing the achievements of the government and its leader remained in the video.
Why the Publication Was Deemed Prohibited
According to Sohlberg’s decision, state resources were used to produce and distribute the video, including footage by Israel’s Government Press Office. The prime minister’s visit to the military post in Lebanon was itself an opportunity unavailable to other candidates. Accordingly, the publication was recognized as prohibited election propaganda under the Election Propaganda Methods Law.
The Decision and Costs
The committee chairman ruled that state resources had also been used unlawfully for propaganda purposes in other cases under consideration. Netanyahu was required to remove the relevant posts from his social media accounts. In addition, he was personally ordered to pay the petitioners a total of NIS 29,000 in legal costs.
What this means for you
The decision clarifies that official footage, government distribution channels, and access to sites by virtue of public office may not be used to gain an advantage in election propaganda. Materials found to violate this prohibition may be ordered removed, and the costs of the proceedings may be imposed personally on the politician.
Find a lawyer for this topic
- Lawyers: Общая практика
- Lawyers in Тель-Авив
- Lawyers in Иерусалим
- Lawyers in Хайфа
- Lawyers in Ришон ле-Цион