Likud files petition demanding Eisenkot's Yashar remove anti-Netanyahu campaign ads

Likud claims the videos present journalistic sources and Netanyahu’s remarks in a partial and misleading manner, amounting to “unfair interference” with the party’s election campaign.

Attorneys Ilan Bombach and Inbal Amit filed the petition on Likud’s behalf. The party is also seeking an interim order requiring the videos to be removed while the case is under consideration.

Likud’s allegations focus largely on how the videos edited and presented the sources they relied on.

Likud cites the distribution of the videos across four social media platforms as one of the factors demonstrating what it describes as its campaign nature.

Likud argues that the words “two months before the massacre” do not appear in the original source and that the reference to “a warning of war” appeared there in a different context.

The video is based on a column that stated: “After all, if Ronen Bar truly believed what he told Netanyahu, ‘I am giving you a warning of war today.’”

The petition claims the video reworded the statement, while the website’s name and publication date appeared alongside it. Likud argues that this could give viewers the impression that the wording shown in the video appeared in the original article.

The second video displays the text, “Netanyahu two weeks before the massacre: The goal is a quiet holiday period,” alongside a reference to a report by N12 News.

Likud claims this wording also does not appear in the original report and that the statement was not presented there as a direct quote from Netanyahu.

The petition also raises questions about the timeline. Likud claims the original source refers to discussions held in September 2023 that do not correspond with the framing of “two weeks before the massacre.” According to the party, the video includes wording that did not appear in the report, alongside its identifying details.

The third video uses a clip from a 2023 Netanyahu interview on the Israeli television program “The Patriots.” Netanyahu was asked about a Military Intelligence assessment that the threat of war was increasing and responded: “I think this is being exaggerated.” The excerpt in the video ends there.

The petition quotes part of Netanyahu’s later response, which the video omitted. Netanyahu said Israel “always prepares for this possibility” and was prepared “to deal with it from all directions.”

“I think they understand that it is not a good idea to start a war with the State of Israel,” he later added.

Likud argues that ending the clip immediately after the words “I think this is being exaggerated” leaves viewers with a partial response that excludes Netanyahu’s remarks immediately afterward.

Based on these three examples, Likud claims the external sources were edited in a way that changed how their content was presented to viewers. The petition argues that the wording created for the videos appears to have been taken directly from the original sources, creating what Likud describes as an “alternative reality.”

Likud’s legal argument centers on whether the videos accurately presented their sources. The petition states that “truth in advertising is not the standard” in this case.

According to the party, altered wording presented as though it appeared in a news report, or the editing of a source in a way that changes the meaning of the material, could be considered “unfair interference” with a rival party’s campaign under Section 13 of Israel’s Elections Law governing campaign methods.

Likud added that reasonable voters cannot be expected to locate the original reports and interviews and compare them with the videos. The party argues that displaying the name of the news outlet, the publication date, and the original footage gives the wording used in the videos a factual and credible appearance.

Sohlberg must determine whether the use of external sources in this case exceeds the permissible limits of editing in an election campaign. At this stage, the claims remain Likud’s allegations, and no ruling has been issued.

Likud is asking Sohlberg to order the removal of the videos while the petition is being considered. The party based its request on the nature of social media distribution, arguing that videos can accumulate views, be widely shared, and continue circulating online.

It maintains that removing the videos later would not reverse the effects of their distribution. The petition notes that if the case ends with its rejection, Eisenkot and his party would still be able to republish the videos.

Before filing the petition, Likud contacted Eisenkot and demanded that he remove the videos by 10 a.m. on September 17. Eisenkot’s attorney responded at 9:23 that morning: “Confirming receipt. We will respond, but not by 10 a.m.”

Likud claimed it had received no substantive response by the time it filed the petition and that the videos remained online.

The petition also criticizes the response to Likud’s earlier demand. Likud described the reply, which was sent shortly before its deadline, as “unacceptable” and argued that it carried “an unpleasant scent of an attempt to neutralize the risk that an interim order would be issued.”

The party asked Sohlberg to consider ordering the respondents to pay its legal expenses because of how they handled the request, regardless of the case’s final outcome.

The central question is whether the editing and framing of the three videos amount to “unfair interference” with Likud’s election campaign under the Elections Law. The ruling could also affect how news reports, quotations, and interviews may be used in Israeli election campaigns.