The 2026 election propaganda petitions: the decisions, the amendment to the law and the coverage

Until 16 July 2026, no. The Chairperson of the Central Elections Committee for the 26th Knesset held in a series of decisions that a minister's office is a public resource, so election propaganda may not be filmed there, under section 2A of the Elections (Modes of Propaganda) Law, 5719–1959. Since Amendment No. 42 of 16 July 2026, filming as such in the office is allowed, and using other public resources for propaganda is still prohibited.

It is important to stress: the restriction applies to the place of filming, not to the content of what is said. A minister may say the very same things, and film them, in a place that is not a public resource.

The distinction was set in the decision in CEC case 50-52, 54-59/26 of 16 June 2026: an office in the Knesset building is not a public resource for the purposes of section 2A, because Knesset members' offices were given to them for their political needs, not for state or public needs. In any case they do not have a non-political character, and they do not give an advantage in access to public resources over other candidates.

Accordingly, petitions that concerned videos filmed in offices in the Knesset were dismissed, including one video of Minister Dichter and three videos of Minister Karhi.

No. It was held that an explicit call to vote one way or another is not necessary. The test is whether the dominant purpose of the post is to influence the voter: to move them to vote one way or another, to dissuade them from a particular choice, or to influence their political preference.

The sub-tests that help identify election propaganda: the content of the post (main weight), whether there is an alternative purpose, the identity of the publisher and of whoever initiated the post, the platform on which the post appeared, and the timing of the post and how close it is to the elections.

No. The state flag is not a public resource for the purposes of section 2A, and neither is the mere use of the title "minister". By contrast, the state emblem does count as a public resource, and in this it differs from the flag.

As a rule, no. In CEC case 20/26, the position that the Foreign Ministry will no longer repost on its official accounts posts in Hebrew from a personal-political account of the Foreign Minister (and, for the avoidance of doubt, also not of another minister or a deputy minister in the ministry) was given the force of a decision.

A unique exception was set for posts in English whose dominant purpose is to advance Israel's foreign policy and not election propaganda. The decision also recommended considering a separate official account for the Foreign Minister, which would remove the need to share from a personal-political account.

The respondents argued that petitions about old videos were filed too late. The argument was rejected: as long as the videos are still available online and voters may come across them, an order may be given against the "continuation" of the offense, under section 17B(a) of the Law. In the office petitions, the earliest video was posted about eight months before the petition was filed, and it was held that the time that had passed does not justify dismissal on this ground alone.

Yaron Meiri is a lawyer and CPA. He holds a law degree, a degree in business administration with an accounting major and an Executive MBA, and he is a member of the Israel Bar Association and of the Institute of Certified Public Accountants in Israel.

His office works on class actions and consumer claims, employment law, commercial contracts, digital commerce and artificial intelligence (AI), and defamation and reputation. In the proceedings described on this page he represented himself.