Justice Noam Sohlberg accepted five of six challenges in full or in part and rejected the remaining one. The different outcomes matter: the ruling did not classify every official appearance by the prime minister as prohibited campaigning.
Where Official Work Became Campaign Material
The cases concerned speeches and appearances in settings including the Prime Minister’s Office press room, military ceremonies and security assessments. Watchdog organizations argued that the resulting material promoted Netanyahu’s election campaign using resources unavailable to other candidates.
Sohlberg examined how those settings and production resources were used. According to the reporting on his decision, presenting military and diplomatic achievements as personal political accomplishments could turn an official event into election propaganda.
The issue was therefore broader than the words of a speech alone. Government photography, distribution channels and access to military forums were also relevant to the advantage the material gave the incumbent.
Different Orders for Different Accounts
In two cases, Sohlberg ordered the relevant speech content removed from both official social media channels and Netanyahu’s personal accounts. In three others, all or part of the material had to be removed from official accounts, according to the Times of Israel.
The sixth challenge was rejected because the chairman did not find that the speech constituted election propaganda. The decision thus drew distinctions between individual publications rather than imposing a general prohibition on the prime minister’s communications.
Sohlberg also ordered Netanyahu personally to pay a combined NIS 29,000 in legal expenses. That sum was an expenses order associated with the proceedings, not a criminal sentence.
The Lebanon Visit Illustrated the Boundary
One case involved a visit to an IDF outpost in southern Lebanon. Reporting on the ruling described a distinction between a legitimate official visit intended to support soldiers and an edited video that emphasized the government’s and Netanyahu’s achievements.
The chairman found the use of government produced material for that political presentation problematic. An official security function did not automatically authorize every subsequent campaign use of footage recorded during it.
This distinction also limits what can be inferred from the decision. It was not a determination that the underlying military activity was fictitious or that the security achievements described in the speeches were necessarily false.
Compliance Ahead of the Election
The immediate next step is implementation of the removal and editing requirements by the relevant accounts. The reporting reviewed did not establish whether every affected publication had been removed or whether further legal action would follow.
No substantive response from Netanyahu or the Prime Minister’s Office to this specific October 4 ruling was located in the reviewed material. That absence should not be treated as an admission or as evidence that the decision will be contested.
With polling scheduled for October 27, the order addresses how an incumbent may communicate during the campaign while continuing to perform official duties. Its practical effect depends on the individual videos and channels covered by the ruling, rather than on a blanket restriction on government announcements.
