Two opposition lawmakers have asked Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara to urgently examine what they describe as a serious conflict of interest surrounding the proposed sale of Channel 13 to a businessman identified in media reports as a close associate of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
In a letter sent on Sunday, Yesh Atid MKs Shelly Tal Meron and Karine Elharrar warned that the concentration of significant media assets in the hands of individuals with close political ties to the prime minister – alongside parallel legislative initiatives affecting the communications market – poses a grave threat to press freedom and the public’s right to know.
The lawmakers urged the attorney-general to issue an urgent legal opinion halting any negotiations over the transaction for as long as Netanyahu remains in what they argue is a “severe and ongoing” conflict of interest in the media sphere.
“The government will not manage the media, and the media will not serve the government,” Tal Meron wrote, accusing Netanyahu and Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi of advancing a coordinated strategy: first, weakening independent broadcasters through what she termed “aggressive legislation,” and then ensuring that distressed outlets pass into “the right hands.”
Elharrar, a former justice minister, was more explicit in her legal framing. Netanyahu, she argued, is acting in violation of the conflict-of-interest arrangement he signed and continues to intervene – directly and indirectly – to promote figures who, in her words, have “operated channels for him” and shaped public consciousness to his political advantage. “He is barred from doing so yet continues to act contrary to the law,” she said.
The petition cites recent reports that the prospective buyer already holds substantial interests in additional Israeli media and communications platforms. According to the lawmakers, approval of the Channel 13 deal under such circumstances would result in a disproportionate concentration of media power, granting the purchaser outsized influence over the Israeli communications market – even if formal ownership thresholds are technically met.
Beyond personal conflicts of interest, the letter raises broader regulatory questions, arguing that existing media law requires regulators to assess not only nominal ownership percentages but also effective control and influence. The proposed transaction, they warn, could be structured to comply with formal limits while still conferring real editorial and operational dominance.
While no authority has yet ruled on the legality of the proposed sale, several commentators have warned that the timing of the deal – amid an ongoing overhaul of communications regulation – raises red flags that warrant close scrutiny.
Netanyahu is currently subject to a binding conflict-of-interest arrangement stemming from his criminal trial, which explicitly restricts his involvement in matters relating to the media and communications sector. The attorney-general has previously emphasized that these limitations apply not only to formal decisions but also to indirect influence.
As of publication, the Attorney-General’s Office had not publicly responded to the lawmakers’ request. Channel 13 has also not issued a statement addressing the allegations.