Minister Shlomo Karhi's (Likud) communications bill was dealt a critical blow, which may lead to a severe political crisis between the coalition and United Torah Judaism (UTJ).
The heads of UTJ, MKs Yitzhak Goldknopf and Moshe Gafni, announced on Monday that they would vote against the bill, undermining the coalition majority needed for it to pass.
Assuming that that is what will happen, the current majority has shrunk to 60 for versus 58 against (Avi Maoz is not expected to support the bill), putting the reform's fate in immediate danger.
The proposed legislation seeks to dramatically overhaul Israel's broadcasting market by dissolving existing independent media regulators and replacing them with a politically appointed oversight board.
The current political upheaval began following a legal opinion issued by the Knesset's legal adviser, Adv. Sagit Afik. Afik ruled unequivocally that, from a procedural standpoint, it is not possible at this stage to regulate the issue of the "obscene broadcasts" sought by the haredi parties, because the relevant provision was removed from the original bill during the early stages of the legislative process.
To return the provision, the entire Knesset would need to vote on it, not only the committee.
In addition, the Knesset legal adviser rejected an attempt to add amendments concerning Sabbath observance to the bill, arguing that they had not been discussed in an orderly manner and constituted a serious flaw in the legislative process. Afik also accepted the opposition’s position, following claims by MK Eitan Ginzburg (Blue and White), that parts of the proposed changes constituted a “new subject," a determination that significantly delays the bill’s progress.
Following the disqualification of the religious clauses, the politician now facing a particularly difficult dilemma is Aryeh Deri. Some members of the party’s Council of Torah Sages strongly oppose the bill in its current form, arguing that it could permit Sabbath violations and broadcasts of prohibited content.
Whereas in the past Shas could justify supporting the legislation as part of coalition agreements designed to advance laws important to its constituency, the absence of the procedural safeguards it demanded means that supporting the bill now would be seen as an active vote against the position of the party’s rabbis.