To paraphrase the punchline in the song "Hotel California" by the band "The Eagles":
"You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave."
- My opinion is different.
- In my opinion, since the "Galei Tzahal" station is a military unit, which, like all army units, has defied the authority of the Chief of the General Staff (hereinafter: the Chief of Staff), who heads the IDF chain of command (as stated in section 3(a) of the Basic Law: The Army) - the closure of the station is under the full authority of the Chief of Staff (see: Section 2A ofthe Military Justice Law, 1955). Therefore, just as the Chief of Staff is authorized to close a military unit such as the Nahal Infantry Division, or any other unit in the IDF, he has the authority to order the closure of the Galei Tzahal military station. Although this station was established, at the time, by order of the government, and therefore the government is authorized to order its closure (as stated in section 15 of the Interpretation Law, 5741-1981 (hereinafter: the Interpretation Law)), but this authority does not negate the authority of the Chief of Staff. At the same time, since the Chief of Staff is "subject to the government's authority and is subordinate to the Minister of Defense" (as stated in section 3(b) ofthe Basic Law: The Army), the government has the authority to order him to close the "Army Radio" station, without any connection to the establishment of the station by order of the government.
- In the army as in the army: Just as the chief of staff is entitled to close the "army radio" with a unilateral command decision, so it is with regard to the government. This simple conclusion is derived from the fact that the station is a military unit for all intents and purposes.
- The government has chosen to examine the closure of the station by establishing a committee to examine the aspects and methods of closure - an action that is within its authority by virtue of an auxiliary authority (see: section 17 of the Interpretation Law, as well as Dafna Barak-Erez, Administrative Law, vol. 1, pp. 145-152 (2010)).
- In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the general opinion that the government - with all its branches, and in particular, the military wing - should withdraw its hands from news broadcasts, current affairs and other content that may be in public dispute, through radio, television and the print press. According to this view, the government's participation in the world of broadcast content should be limited and limited to the careful, strict and equal provision of subsidies to content creators in which the public, or a large part of it, has an interest, and which will not be produced or broadcast due to market failures of one kind or another. This is while the government carefully maintains neutrality with regard to subsidized content.
- This opinion - which is also my own opinion - has a firm foothold in an important economic-empirical article: Simeon Djankov, et al., Who Owns the Media?, 46 Law & Econ. 341 (2003). This article pointed to the advantages of privatizing news and current affairs broadcasts - a framework of freedom of action in which there is competition in the market of opinions without government involvement, which, subject to necessary, neutral and equal government subsidies, is much preferable to government control of broadcasts.
As explained by the authors of the article,