Opposition MKs from Yesh Atid, Shelly Tal Meron and Karin Elharrar asked Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara on Wednesday to examine Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s role in the appointment of Dr. Yifat Ben Hay-Segev as chair of the Second Authority for Television and Radio Council.
The request came after reports that Hay-Segev participated in the cabinet discussion and voted in favor of the move despite his conflict-of-interest arrangement.
In a letter to the attorney-general, the two lawmakers argued that Netanyahu is barred from involvement in matters touching witnesses in his criminal trial. They pointed specifically to Ben Hay-Segev’s appearance as a witness in Case 4000 and said her appointment to a senior regulatory post raises concern over improper involvement by the prime minister in a matter from which he was supposed to recuse himself.
The position at the center of the dispute is a significant one. The Second Authority is Israel’s statutory regulator for commercial television and regional radio, and its council is the body that oversees policy and supervision in one of the country’s most sensitive media arenas.
The chair of that council is therefore a central figure in the regulation of Israel’s commercial broadcast market.
Netanyahu faces scrutiny in controversial Media Council move
That broader significance has already made the appointment politically and legally charged. Recent challenges to the new council argued that Ben Hay-Segev’s recent role as a public representative on the board of Channel 13 could create a conflict that may limit her ability to deal with some issues before the regulator.
The Israel Democracy Institute described the appointment as potentially paralyzing for the authority because of those conflict concerns.
The immediate significance of the latest dispute, however, is narrower and sharper: whether Netanyahu took part in approving the appointment of a woman tied to his own trial in violation of his conflict restrictions. That question quickly became part of the public debate online as well, with legal and political commentators amplifying the report after it was first aired by Channel 13.
There was no immediate public response from the Prime Minister’s Office.