Newly appointed Second Authority Council chairwoman Dr. Yifat Ben Hay-Segev and members of the council asked the High Court of Justice on Sunday to reject petitions against their appointments, arguing in preliminary responses that the challenges are politically driven and legally unfounded.

The responses were filed as part of a series of petitions against the government’s March appointments to the Second Authority Council, the body that regulates Israel’s commercial television and regional radio broadcasters, including channels 12 and 13 and their news companies.

The petitions were filed by the Union of Journalists in Israel, the Israel Television News Company, the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, the Israel Press Council, and the Association for the Preservation of Legal Values.

Justice Alex Stein froze the council’s activity earlier this month, barring it from convening or making decisions until further notice, after the state missed its deadline to respond to the petitions. Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara later told the court that the appointments should be canceled and returned for renewed review, arguing that the process suffered from serious legal flaws.

In her response, Ben Hay-Segev argued that the petitions were an attempt to turn her, “at the height of her career,” into a person who cannot be appointed to public office. She said no one had questioned her qualifications during earlier public appointments, and that criticism surfaced only after she testified in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Case 4000 trial.

Ben Hay-Segev, whose response emphasized her background in media regulation, research, and management, argued that her appointment was made lawfully after consultation, legal review by the Communications Ministry, and approval by the appointments vetting committee. She said the committee had already examined claims regarding her prior role as a public director at Channel 13, her defamation dispute with Channel 12 journalists, the Knesset Channel tender, and her connection to a research institute.

The council members filed a separate response, arguing that the petitioners - and perhaps the Attorney-General’s Office - were treating them as “collateral damage” in political battles being fought with “pseudo-legal” tools. They said all the appointments met the legal requirements, including approval by the appointments committee, and noted that six of the appointed members were entering a second term.

The response also pushed back against challenges targeting specific members, including attorney Kinneret Barashi and Dr. Haim Shine, arguing that public statements or political views should not automatically disqualify citizens from public service. The members warned that doing so would create a dangerous chilling effect on freedom of expression.

On Netanyahu’s involvement, the responses argued that any alleged flaw was cured when the government voted again on March 31 without the prime minister present. They also argued that Ben Hay-Segev completed her testimony in 2022, and that any personal conflict-of-interest claim against Netanyahu could not invalidate the entire government’s decision.

The respondents further argued that freezing the council harms the public interest. They said the new council had begun dealing with annual Second Authority reports that had not been published since 2021, and claimed that years of weak oversight and enforcement had contributed to accumulated obligations by regulated broadcasters amounting to hundreds of millions of shekels.