Silencing opinions is nothing new. It is a tool used by those who fear what you might say and people will hear, and so they work to make sure you cannot say it. They are afraid that people will hear what they want to hide.
In Israel, for many years it was forbidden to hear other voices. The judicial system and the media, controlled by the left, did everything to ensure other voices would not be heard. Even today we are fighting for the right to have our voices heard in the places where it matters most, where our rights are under constant attack.
The case of Arutz Sheva is a striking example. After decades in which only one voice was heard in the media, in 1988 a group of people decided to establish a conservative, Zionist (we will call it right wing) radio station to give representation to more than half the public, a public excluded by the mainstream media that never heard voices reflecting other opinions. The state refused to license such a station in Israel, so they bought a ship, anchored it outside Israeli waters and broadcast from there.
Israeli citizen Abie Nathan had been operating the “Voice of Peace” ship in this way since 1973, but in the case of Arutz Sheva, the persecution began immediately. The judicial system decided to prosecute the people behind Arutz 7 for “pirate broadcasts” in order to silence them. In response, the Knesset passed a law retroactively legalizing Arutz 7, but the Supreme Court stepped in, insisted that “anyone who breaks the law must be punished,” struck down the law, and even sentenced Arutz 7 leaders to prison. Abie Nathan and his supporters were never prosecuted. His opinions matched the progressive liberal (we will call them the left) peace camp.
In Israel, people love to talk about freedom of speech. Whenever criticism is leveled against a media outlet, voices immediately cry out about “silencing.” Yet the only institutionalized case of real silencing was that of Arutz 7 — the only right-wing radio station in Israel was the single lamb taken from the flock.
There were further attempts to shut down right-leaning outlets — a proposed law aimed at stopping the newspaper Israel Hayom, repeated efforts to close down Channel 20 (which later became Channel 14, where the atttempts included trying to persuade advertisers to leave the now popular channel) — always against the right, and always with the full backing of the media establishment.
Funding for media follows the same pattern. Government funding is disproportionately available for the left, and if leftist demands for government grants and funding are denied, supporters bewail “silencing”.
We also know, unfortunately, about the silencing of right-wing protesters. The contrast is staggering: the judiciary and the media mistreated protesters against Oslo and the Gush Katif expulsion — demonstrators were abused, beaten, arrested. Teenage girls were imprisoned in solitary confinement for months and inexcusably subjected to body searches. Buses on the way to Kfar Maimon to join protests were stopped and prevented from getting there. Special courts were even set up to process people in bulk, while the media suppressed any criticism.
Compared that to the treatment of anti-government protesters today, arrests are rare and indictments almost nonexistent. Gush Katif protestors, including minors, were arrested for standing beside a road with a sign. Those who did block roads were thrown in jail. Today anti-government protestors are allowed to block major roads for hours, setting them afire, and the media criticizes the police for any attempt to intervene. The double standard is outrageous. Once again we see selective enforcement: one side gets to amplify its messages and cries “silencing”, while the other is actually silenced, even violently.
And what about the Supreme Court? In the Supreme Court, every effort is made to prevent the right from presenting its positions. Sometimes, even the government itself is blocked from defending its own decisions. An absurd situation has been created in which the “defendant” — the body being petitioned against — cannot even represent itself. The government is required to use, and to use only, the legal representative appointed by the Attorney General. When the government finds itself in opposition to the court, as it is now, the government is denied the right to self-representation. This gives voice only to the petition against the government and the Attorney General’s opposition to its policies, while the government itself has no voice in court.
And this is not the only way the Court silences views. In many cases, a right-leaning organization that supports government policy requests to be heard in court — only to be rejected. Meanwhile, the Court readily approves participation by left-leaning groups. The clearest example is the “Reasonableness” case — one of the most significant hearings in Israel’s legal history, where the Court ultimately ruled it could strike down Basic Laws on whatever grounds it wished, effectively turning itself into an unchecked supreme authority.
In that case, many organizations petitioned against the law passed by the Knesset abolishing the “reasonableness” doctrine (a minor reform compared with what was really needed). When the hearing was announced, many groups applied to present arguments both for and against. The Court allowed all eight opposing organizations to participate admitting a variety of left-leaning organizations, some completely unrelated, such as environmental NGOs and international groups. Every single right-wing application was denied — including that of the Legal Forum for Israel, which has specialized in this field for decades.
Ultimately, no right-wing body was allowed to speak, while more than ten left-wing organizations presented their case again and again.
The “Reasonableness” case is far from unique. By blocking the right from appearing before the Court, the Supreme Court systematically silences right-wing arguments, ensuring only one side is heard — the side with which they agree.
The murder of Charlie Kirk in the United States is a very extreme example of silencing opinions, but the left doesn’t need to go as far as murder to prevent people from speaking. There are many other tools used to stop the public from hearing or expressing other views, effectively excluding them from the public sphere.
There is an outrageous gap in reporting. Statements from the right are removed from their context to change their meaning and then amplified. Statements from the left with serious bias and factual errors are ignored. Incitement against the Prime Minister and ministers is downplayed as legitimate discussion to legitimize the inciters. The lenient, accepting attitude toward such incitement has become routine.
As free speech, all this should be allowed, people should be allowed to say and to hear what they want. That a sign of a strong and free society. That the judiciary and the state apparatus can suppress one side and promote the other should never happen in a proper, functioning state. That must not be allowed to continue.
This is why it is so important to have media outlets on the right. This is why it is so important to carry out reform in the judicial system, and to make Israel a true democracy—one in which it is permitted to voice different opinions, and where voices are not silenced.
The small, radical, extremist minority that controls Israel knows exactly what it fears: it knows, like every minority in power, that if the public begins to hear other perspectives, it may no longer allow them to continue controlling the courts and the media, which they do even when they lose elections. That is why it acts to silence the voices rising from the grassroots.
We believe the truth will inevitably come out, and it can ultimately prevail — to make sure this happens, all the people of Israel must truly have a voice.
The Legal Forum/HaForum.org.il