What counts as election propaganda? The tests in practice

The law does not define “election propaganda”, so the test is one of purpose

Anyone who looks in the Elections (Modes of Propaganda) Law, 5719-1959 for a definition of “election propaganda” will not find one. The definitions section, section 1A, defines “primary elections”, “body connected to a faction”, “body active in the elections” and other terms, but not the central term on which the whole Law is built. The result: the question whether a publication is election propaganda is decided by its purpose, as learned from its content, its context, its timing and the place where it was published.

The practical test that has developed in the decisions of the Chairperson of the Central Elections Committee is the dominant purpose test: not whether a propaganda element can also be identified in the publication, but what its main purpose is. A publication whose dominant purpose is something else, whether professional, official or explanatory, will not be treated as propaganda even if it contains an element that benefits the elected official.

No explicit call to vote is needed

This may be the point that most publishers miss. In the decision in CEC case (תב״כ) 28-31, 33/26 of 31 May 2026 it was held, in essence, that when ministers present their positions and achievements, past, present or future, they are asking the public to support them and to vote for them and their list on election day; that an explicit call to vote one way or another is not needed for it to be election propaganda; and that voters understand for themselves what the result at the ballot box is supposed to be.

In practice, the videos discussed in that decision included statements on education and Judaism, public criticism, transportation policy and ministry achievements, and criticism of the justice system, all without a word about voting. What they had in common, as the decision put it: the minister presents their position, describes their achievements and expresses an intention to act.

The opposite argument, that this was nothing more than protected political expression on issues on the agenda, was raised and rejected. And as was stressed there, the restriction in section 2A is on the place of filming and not on the content of the expression: the same things can be said and filmed in a place that is not a public resource.

How the test is applied: the dominant purpose in action

The decision in CEC case 20/26 of 15 May 2026 shows the other side of the test, publications that were examined and found not to be propaganda:

• A publication about the campaign against the Iranian regime, which included praise for the Prime Minister: it was held that its main purpose was presenting the position of the State of Israel during a war and presenting a united front under its leadership, and that this purpose outweighs a possible purpose of propaganda.
• An official announcement on a diplomatic matter: it was held that there is no bar to stating in an official publication that the Foreign Minister, in coordination with the Prime Minister, is the one who decides.
• A condolence publication: the phrase “our alliance” was interpreted as the alliance of the State of Israel with the community, and not as a personal connection of the minister.

The same decision also set an interesting exception based on language: for content in Hebrew only, it is doubtful what use it has in spreading the State of Israel’s messages, whereas messages in English have more force in this area, and for them it is easier to find that their dominant purpose is advancing foreign policy. But an express qualification was added: the exception applies only to publications whose dominant purpose is not election propaganda, and if a publication is found to be intended mainly as propaganda, it must not be shared on an official account in any language.

The borderline cases: when one sentence decides

The decision in CEC case 50-52, 54-59/26 of 16 June 2026 shows how fine the line is. Two videos were classed there as borderline cases:

• In one, the Energy Minister reported on a reform by his ministry, and only at the start added a personal background: “after I broke the Israel Electric Corporation’s monopoly”.
• In the other, the Welfare Minister described a budget approved for resilience centers, and at the end added “I welcome the outcome”, a statement that takes credit for the whole decision.

The solution that was set: if the videos can be edited so that those sentences are removed, they can be uploaded again in the edited form; if not, the whole video must be removed. In other words, the same ministry report can be legitimate or propaganda, depending on one sentence of taking personal credit.

Application in time: when the prohibitions apply at all

Section 2 of the Law sets the framework: the prohibitions and restrictions under the Law apply, as a rule, in the period of 90 days before election day and on election day. In the elections for the 26th Knesset (27 October 2026), this period began on 29 July 2026. But the same section makes an exception: the prohibitions under sections 2A (use of public resources), 2A1 (transparency in election propaganda), 4 (restriction on the use of loudspeakers), 12 (delivery of printed material) and 13 (prohibition of disruption) apply even outside that period. In a Temporary Provision in force from 23 July 2026 until 26 October 2027, section 2A2 was also added to the list. It concerns a duty of disclosure in propaganda that is a “deepfake”, meaning content that was created or altered by digital means and appears to be an authentic record.

One more point about time: an old publication that is still available online does not “expire” on its own. In CEC case 28-31, 33/26, a delay (laches) argument was rejected about videos published about eight months before the petitions were filed, on the ground that as long as the videos are available and voters may come across them, an order may be given against the continuation of the offense under section 17B(a).

Another framework: what an “election advertisement” is for the transparency duty

Alongside the purpose test, the Law does define a related term in one context. Section 2A1 imposes a transparency duty: a person shall not publish an election advertisement unless it bears the name of the person responsible for ordering it and the ways to contact them; in a printed advertisement, also the name of the printer; and if the person responsible acted on behalf of a candidate or another body, also their name and the letter or name of the faction.

An “election advertisement” is defined there as either of these: election propaganda carried out by a candidate in the elections, a body connected to a faction or a body active in the elections, or someone on their behalf; or election propaganda content published for payment. The section also applies to propaganda in primary elections, with the necessary changes.

Note that this definition also relies on the term “election propaganda”, so here too you end up back at the purpose test.

Why this matters in practice

The classification is not an academic exercise. Once a publication is election propaganda, a series of duties and prohibitions opens up: the prohibition on using public resources (section 2A), the transparency duty (section 2A1), the prohibition on involving children under the age of 15 (section 2C), and, during the Temporary Provision, also the duty of disclosure for deepfakes (section 2A2). And once a breach occurs, the route of a petition for an injunction under section 17B opens, including an award of costs.

Further reading: Use of public resources in election propaganda, A petition to the Chairperson of the Central Elections Committee: how it works, and the overview page May a minister film election propaganda in their office?. For wider background: What counts as election propaganda? The tests in practice, and Freedom of the press: legal limits. For publishing on social networks and with digital tools: Digital commerce and AI.

Frequently asked questions

Does the law define what “election propaganda” is? No. The Elections (Modes of Propaganda) Law, 5719-1959 does not contain a definition of the term; its definitions section (section 1A) defines other terms only. So the question is decided by the purpose of the publication, the dominant purpose test, as learned from the content of the publication, its context, its timing and the place where it was published.

Does a post need an explicit call to vote to count as propaganda? No. In CEC case 28-31, 33/26 (31 May 2026) it was held that an explicit call to vote one way or another is not necessary for there to be election propaganda, and that when an elected official presents their positions and achievements, past, present or future, voters understand what the result at the ballot box is supposed to be.

A video in which a minister reports on their ministry’s work: is that propaganda? It depends on the dominant purpose. In CEC case 50-52, 54-59/26, two videos were discussed in which the ministry report was legitimate, but one sentence of taking personal credit tipped the balance. It was held that if the video can be edited so that the sentence is removed, it can be uploaded again in the edited form; if not, the whole video must be removed.

When do the propaganda bans apply: only close to the elections? As a rule, in the 90 days before election day and on election day (section 2 of the Law); in the elections for the 26th Knesset (27 October 2026), from 29 July 2026. But the prohibitions under sections 2A, 2A1, 4, 12 and 13 also apply outside this period. In a Temporary Provision in force from 23 July 2026 until 26 October 2027, section 2A2 was also added to the list. It concerns a duty of disclosure in propaganda that is a “deepfake”.

An old post that stays online: can you still act against it? Yes. In CEC case 28-31, 33/26, a delay (laches) argument was rejected about videos published about eight months before the petitions were filed. It was held that as long as the videos are available and voters may come across them, an order may be given against the continuation of the offense under section 17B(a), and that the passage of time does not justify dismissal on that ground alone.

What is an “election advertisement”, and how is it different from election propaganda? An “election advertisement” is a term defined in section 2A1 for the purpose of the transparency duty. It includes election propaganda carried out by a candidate in the elections, a body connected to a faction or a body active in the elections, or someone on their behalf, and also election propaganda content published for payment. This definition also relies on the term “election propaganda”, which is not defined in the Law, so in the end you come back to the purpose test.