The Economic Affairs Committee, chaired by MK David Bitan (Likud), convened on Monday for a debate dealing with the location of the Channel 14 news desk. Committee Chair MK Bitan said at the start of the meeting that the Second Authority for Television and Radio was demanding that the channel move to Jerusalem and broadcast from there, after the channel invested close to NIS 21 million [in a site] in Modi’in. He noted that other channels had received easements in postponing the period [of the move] or in the location, and asked to examine such an option for Channel 14 as well.
The committee’s legal advisor, Adv. Itai Atzmon, said that according to the law, the requirement to move the news desk’s location to Jerusalem had applied to the channel since January 2025. As for the other channels, he said that a ruling handed down in the past in a petition by the Jerusalem Municipality against the Second Authority gave a seal of approval to having other news desks sit in Neve Ilan as the Jerusalem District.
Committee Chair MK Bitan commented, “The court interpreted Neve Ilan as Jerusalem, stretching [the law] like chewing gum, so if that’s the case, perhaps Modi’in is also Jerusalem?” He said further that in the draft of the new broadcasts bill, the Ministry of Communications wishes to strike this requirement.
Adv. Ziv Giladi, representative of the Ministry of Communications, said that the question of the existing law was laid before the Second Authority. “We won’t intervene in their work, we’re trying to present a bill,” he said. Onn Tadmor, Chief of Staff to the CEO of the Second Authority for Television and Radio, said that the council would discuss the issue but was awaiting the channel’s response first.
Committee Chair MK Bitan said that he believed that the channel should be given an extension, and this should also be until clarification of the issue of the bill abolishing the requirement to move the news desk to Jerusalem. Ministry of Justice official Adv. Adi Libros said that this was a policy question that would be decided in the broadcasts bill. As for an extension, she said that the Second Authority would have to address this, and that to the best of her understanding the law did not enable such a mechanism. “The sanctions are subject to the discretion of the Second Authority,” she said.
Adv. Noga Rubinstein, legal counsel for Keshet [Channel 12] and Reshet [Channel 13], said, “If Neve Ilan is not Jerusalem, and if the Government does not think that Jerusalem should be in the memorandum of law, then we demand for reasons of equality that the policy of the Second Authority also apply to Reshet and Keshet in an evenhanded manner.”
Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem Yossi Havilio said that an extension could not be granted, and that if one were granted he would file a petition against it. He said that the channel had already been in Jerusalem and announced that it would return, but was counting on being allowed not to return. “It’s a disgrace, it’s unthinkable that the Government applauds Jerusalem on Jerusalem Day, but in practice it does the opposite. This is a death sentence for Jerusalem. Why don’t we just move the capital of Israel to Modi’in? It’s a slippery slope, other organizations will come along and leave Jerusalem. They invested money knowing that they would be in violation of the law, and relied on the lobby that they would have here,” said Havilio.
MK Vladimir Beliak (Yesh Atid) said to committee Chair MK Bitan, “There’s a law and it should be upheld. You give endless benefits to this channel, which is the house channel of your party, and it has to stop somewhere because it’s unpleasant already. However, this law is from 1992, when there were two channels, and today there are 300, so it’s anachronistic to require everyone to broadcast from Jerusalem, and the law should be amended.”
Committee Chair MK Bitan said in summation that a state channel should broadcast from Jerusalem, but there was no reason to require private channels to do so. Accordingly, he asked the Ministry of Communications to present a government bill on the matter, and requested that the Second Authority exercise its discretion and offer the possibility of an extension. “In any case, the matter should be evenhanded,” said the committee chair.
Related Topics
