Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara has urged the High Court of Justice to convert its interim order into a final, binding ruling against government steps to sever ties with Haaretz and TheMarker, arguing that senior civil servants acted unlawfully when they instructed ministries to halt advertising, subscriptions, and other engagements with the newspaper group.
In a formal response submitted by the legal advisory on Tuesday, the attorney-general asked the court to formally invalidate the directors-general’s instructions and to clarify that any actions taken under them must be undone.
The dispute centers on a series of steps taken in late 2024.
On October 31, 2024, directors-general in several government ministries issued instructions to stop engagements with Haaretz, including state advertising and the purchase of subscriptions for eligible employees and officeholders.
In the weeks that followed, ministries began implementing the instructions in practice, including requests to cancel existing subscriptions.
On November 24, 2024, the government approved a cabinet decision presented by Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi calling to halt state advertising and other commercial ties with Haaretz. TheMarker reported at the time on the decision and its implications for government advertising and subscriptions.
The cabinet decision was merely 'declarative'
In its response, the legal advisory rejected the government’s claim that the cabinet decision was merely “declarative.” Even a declarative decision, the filing argues, carries legal weight when it is intended to prompt concrete action by government bodies - and must therefore comply with established legal and administrative procedures.
The response identifies two central legal flaws.
First, the directors-general issued their instructions without examining the applicable legal framework, including procurement rules, tender requirements, and Finance Ministry regulations. The attorney-general’s deputies later informed the state that the instructions could not stand under existing law.
Second, the attorney-general warned that using state advertising and contracting powers to target a specific newspaper raises serious constitutional concerns, particularly regarding freedom of expression and freedom of the press. The filing cites earlier internal legal warnings - including correspondence from December 2023 addressing similar proposals - cautioning that such measures would mark a sharp departure from accepted norms and risk entrenching political influence over media coverage.
After the state updated the court in June 2025 on the attorney-general’s position that the instructions were unlawful, the High Court issued a conditional order requiring the state to explain why the measures should not be struck down. A hearing that had been scheduled in the case was subsequently canceled in light of the parties’ positions.
Baharav-Miara has now asked the court to make the order absolute, explicitly voiding the directors-general’s instructions and directing that steps taken pursuant to them be reversed.
The government has been granted separate legal representation in the proceedings. A final ruling would determine whether the attorney-general’s position is закрепed as a binding judicial directive - and, in practical terms, whether the state may lawfully use its advertising and subscription spending as leverage against a critical media outlet.