The Chairman of the Central Election Committee, Supreme Court Judge Yitzhak Amit, accepted the petition of the Hossan Israel and New Hope parties against the Likud, and ordered the immediate removal of misleading advertising on its behalf. In addition, the Likud was ordered to pay expenses of NIS 20,000.
The petition was submitted about a week ago.
The parties, which recently united into a single list called "Blue and White - The New Blue", requested an injunction against an ad that the Likud displayed on all media sites, supposedly on their behalf, and which featured the image of MK Ahmed Tibi and next to it the caption "We will form a government with him".
This is a reference to election propaganda that they themselves put up on the networks, with a picture of the Likud chairman, Binyamin Netanyahu, and next to it the caption "We will form a stable government without him".
Likud's and Hosan's awareness of Israel and a new hope,
In Resilience for Israel and a New Hope they claimed in their petition that Likud took their original publication and used it without any permission in violation of property rights.
"The faction changed it for its own purpose, but left in the misleading advertisement its design, its colors and, worse, the fact that the petitioners are allegedly responsible for the misleading advertisement in a way that not only constitutes a deliberate deception but also a falsification of all the meanings involved...", it was written.
As mentioned, Judge Amit accepted the petition.
"In reviewing the publications below, it was found that the publication on behalf of the respondent was predicted, on the formal side, to be a publication on behalf of the petitioners - therefore it may mislead the reasonable voter, and interfere, in an unfair way, with the election propaganda on behalf of the petitioners," he wrote in his decision.
"The respondent went to great lengths to explain why there is a discrepancy between the publications, which allays the fear that a reasonable voter will make a mistake. However, in all these explanations there is no permission for any party to publish publications in the name of another party."
The judge also added: "I find it difficult to think of any circumstances in which publication by Party A, associating the ad with Party B, would not constitute a clear violation of Section 13 of the Propaganda Law. In any case, even if such rare and unusual circumstances occur, the publication The subject of the petition does not fall within the scope. Hence, as mentioned, the petition is entitled to be accepted."
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us