JNS
Institutional anomaly, media power and the struggle over democratic authority.
The Israeli government’s decision to close Army Radio (Galei Tzahal) has triggered a renewed debate over the future of a prominent radio station, and a broader dispute over institutional legitimacy, civil–military relations, and the extent of judicial oversight over executive decisions.
Critics of the move have framed it primarily as a threat to press freedom, while supporters describe it as a structural correction to a long-standing democratic irregularity: the operation of a national news and current-affairs outlet by the Israel Defense Forces.
The disagreement reflects contrasting interpretations of Army Radio’s role—whether it should be understood as an independent journalistic institution or as a military body that has expanded beyond its original mandate.
Army Radio was established as a military radio station intended to serve soldiers and strengthen internal cohesion. Over time, however, it developed into a widely consumed civilian broadcaster with significant influence over political discourse.
Unlike Israel’s public broadcasting corporation, this evolution was not accompanied by comprehensive primary legislation defining its status, authority or safeguards. The station has remained under IDF auspices, funded through military channels, while operating in practice as a major player in the civilian media market.
Army Radio presents a clear civil–military anomaly, according to Aya Yadlin of Bar-Ilan University’s School of Communication. She told JNS that civil–military boundaries in democracies are blurred by the existence of a military-run media outlet.
In her opinion, “reasonable arguments do exist for reconsidering the structural anomaly of a military-run media outlet,” including reform or civilianization.
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz argued that the station, established as a military broadcaster to serve soldiers’ morale and cohesion, has drifted far beyond that mandate and now operates in the political sphere in ways that undermine the IDF and national unity.
Where Yadlin diverged sharply from the government’s position is in her interpretation of the current closure initiative. She described the move as “empirically weak and normatively dangerous,” arguing that it is driven less by principled institutional reform than by political hostility toward criticism.
In her assessment, Army Radio is not unusually adversarial toward the IDF or the government, emphasizing that many of its journalists are former soldiers who operate with “deep institutional familiarity.” From this perspective, she warned that closure risks becoming part of a broader pattern of pressure on independent gatekeeping institutions, including the judiciary and civil society.
According to Yadlin, “the disagreement is not over whether Army Radio is problematic, but over what problem it represents and who gets to decide its fate.”
She noted that Army Radio’s power “is symbolic, not just journalistic” and “represents a push toward scrutinizing the army nowadays as accountable for polarization and the events of Oct. 7, 2023, scapegoating it as to clear the leadership’s accountability and responsibility.”
She also told JNS that “the precedent matters more than the station.”
“The central question is not whether Army Radio should exist in its current form,” she said, “but whether governments can dismantle critical institutions without robust, nonpartisan safeguards.”
Supporters of the closure, however, challenge the premise underlying this critique—namely, that Army Radio should be treated as a semi-autonomous democratic institution requiring special protection.
From this analytical standpoint, the lack of a clear statutory foundation is central to the problem. Army Radio is neither a private outlet nor a public broadcaster established by law; it is a military unit engaged in political journalism.
The key question, in this framing, is not the tone or quality of its reporting, but whether such reporting should exist within a military command structure at all.
Public confusion
This view was articulated succinctly by MK Simcha Rothman, head of the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, who told JNS, “No democratic country needs a military-operated news station.”
Rothman characterized the closure as “long overdue,” arguing that public confusion over the issue reflects a politicization of basic democratic concepts.
In his analysis, freedom of expression does not entail a right to a state- or military-run media platform. Journalists remain free to operate in the private sector, while the state’s decision concerns only the continued operation of a publicly funded, institutionally privileged outlet.
The debate has been further complicated by the timing of the decision and by judicial intervention.
Yadlin argued that the closure effort must be understood in the context of post–Oct. 7, 2023, political tensions, including disputes over accountability for intelligence and operational failures, and broader confrontations between the government and the judiciary. In this environment, she suggested, institutional reform cannot easily be disentangled from political motivation.
From the right’s perspective, however, timing does not invalidate authority. On the contrary, the fact that Army Radio accumulated significant political influence without formal democratic anchoring is cited as evidence that prolonged inaction has entrenched an unsustainable arrangement.
Supporters of the government’s decision argue that the real issue is not the existence of Army Radio, per se, but its departure from its military mission. The station’s current affairs programming has frequently featured commentary critical of government policy and IDF decisions.
The High Court of Justice’s decision to freeze the Cabinet’s unanimous resolution pending further review has therefore become a central component of the controversy.
To critics of the court, the injunction exemplifies a pattern in which unelected judges delay or reshape executive policy before its legal merits are fully adjudicated.
Regardless of the final legal outcome, the case highlights a deeper constitutional tension over the separation of powers and institutional scope.
It raises unresolved questions about who determines the proper limits of military involvement in civilian life, how media institutions acquire legitimacy, and the role of judicial oversight in disputes that straddle security, governance and public discourse.
Whether seen as overdue reform or as a risky precedent, the debate has become a proxy for wider disagreements about democratic authority, institutional autonomy and the balance of power in Israel’s political system.
As Rothman told JNS, “The fact that people are confused and say that closing a military-operated news station is against freedom of speech just shows how basic concepts of freedom are politicized by the left.”
