Kol HaAm

Kol HaAm, whose name means “Voice of the People,” was a newspaper of the Israeli Communist Party.[2] Published in Tel Aviv, it appeared in both daily and weekly forms during its history.[3] It belonged to the wider system of party-owned newspapers in Israel, alongside publications affiliated with other political parties.[4] Its coverage combined labor issues, criticism of government policy, international Communist politics, and literary and artistic material.[1]

The newspaper’s political commitments changed substantially over the course of its publication: during the Mandate it opposed the Zionist movement, whereas in November 1947 it welcomed the United Nations resolution providing for two states and subsequently supported Israel’s establishment.[1] Its approach to the Soviet Union also changed, from regular praise of the Soviet social and economic order to criticism of Soviet policy toward Israel and anti-democratic abuses after the Communist Party split of 1965.[1] Throughout these changes, workers’ conditions, Jewish-Arab cooperation, and Palestinian political rights remained subjects of its editorial attention.[1]

Kol HaAm also became associated with the development of Israeli protections for political expression through its successful challenge to a temporary closure imposed in 1953.[5] That case concerned the limits of ministerial authority under the Mandate-era Press Ordinance and the relationship between freedom of expression, public peace, and state security.[5] Its institutional importance therefore extended beyond the newspaper’s own readership or party affiliation: the ruling became an influential reference point in later human-rights cases.[6]

The Palestinian Communist Party, or PKP, launched Kol HaAm in August 1937 as a monthly newspaper distributed stealthily.[1] Donations from party members and sympathizers provided its principal financial support.[1] The publication became a weekly in 1942, but legal publication required a further campaign of public and legal efforts to obtain a British Mandate publishing license.[1] Its first legal issue appeared on December 20, 1944.[1]

From its earliest issues, the paper addressed workers’ conditions and wages and criticized the leadership of the Histadrut.[1] Its editorial line expressed Communist doctrine while opposing both Zionist political positions and those of established Arab parties.[1] Under the Mandate, its targets included British rule, the Zionist movement, and local leadership; its positive demands included Palestinian independence, democratization, Jewish-Arab cooperation, and workers’ unity.[1] The paper also regularly praised the Soviet Union’s social and economic system and carried speeches by Soviet leaders.[1]

International conflicts occupied substantial space in its pages, particularly opposition to Fascism and National Socialism during the Spanish Civil War and World War II.[1] Between 1939 and 1941, however, Kol HaAm defended the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and criticized the war as imperialistic.[1] In April 1942 it called for the Western Allies to open a second European front against Nazi Germany.[1] Its wartime coverage thus included both defense of the Soviet pact with Germany and, subsequently, a demand for expanded Allied military action against Germany.[1]

Amid increasing national tensions and political turmoil, the party converted Kol HaAm into a daily, with the first daily issue appearing on February 14, 1947.[1] In November of that year, the newspaper welcomed the United Nations resolution to establish two states in Palestine.[1] It supported the establishment of Israel and advocated the creation of a Palestinian state alongside it.[1] These positions differed from its earlier opposition to the Zionist movement while preserving its advocacy of political rights for Palestinian Arabs.[1]

After Israeli independence, Kol HaAm became known for socially radical and oppositional reporting.[1] Its attacks on Mapai rule addressed the treatment of workers and immigrants, as well as government policy toward the Arab minority.[1] The paper opposed the military administration imposed on that minority, IDF reprisal operations, and Israel’s cooperation with Britain and France in the 1956 Sinai Campaign.[1] Its political coverage therefore encompassed domestic social policy, relations between Jewish and Arab citizens, and the government’s military and foreign-policy choices.[1]

Disputes within the Israeli Communist Party became visible in the newspaper between 1963 and 1965, initially over the Arab-Israeli conflict and subsequently over the Soviet Union.[1] When the party split in August 1965, Kol HaAm remained with the faction led by Knesset members Moshe Sneh and Shmuel Mikunis, which became known as MAKI.[1] That faction retained not only the newspaper but also its publishing company, printing press, and editorial building.[1] The rival RAKAH faction, led by Tawfik Toubi and Meir Vilner, retained the Arabic-language newspaper Al-Ittihad.[1]

Following the split, Kol HaAm continued to express MAKI’s political line, including support for Palestinian Arab self-determination.[1] It also criticized Soviet policy toward Israel and anti-democratic abuses in the Soviet Union, moving away from the unqualified praise prominent in its earlier coverage.[1] Moshe Sneh was the newspaper’s editor in 1969.[2]

As tensions with Egypt increased in 1967, Kol HaAm urged the parties to prevent war.[1] At the beginning of the Six-Day War, it regarded the conflict as a legitimate act of defense and supported it.[1] Afterward, it criticized occupation and settlement policy and called for mutual Israeli and Palestinian recognition of both peoples’ right to self-determination.[1] Its position thus combined support for Israel’s defensive war with opposition to policies pursued following the fighting.[1]

Declining circulation brought the daily edition to an end on December 12, 1969, after which the newspaper returned to weekly publication.[1] The change to weekly publication took place in January 1970.[2] The final issue appeared on June 30, 1975.[1]

Censorship sometimes appeared directly on Kol HaAm’s printed pages as blank blocks where prohibited material had been removed.[1] Both news and commentary were subject to censorship, and the interior minister repeatedly issued closure orders against the newspaper.[1] Criminal proceedings were also brought against senior management.[1] In a separate prosecution conducted between 1949 and 1951, those responsible for a lead editorial were convicted of defaming the prime minister.[1]

The paper’s coverage included demands for accountability in cases involving alleged killings.[7] An article dated September 23, 1952, carried the headline “Demand for a trial of those accused of murder in Kafr Ara.”[7] Another, published on January 6, 1953, was titled “Judge accepts the argument that revealing the murderers’ names is a ‘military secret.’”[7] The surviving bibliographic information establishes the headlines and dates of these items but does not supply their full contents.[7]

Alongside political reporting, Kol HaAm regularly published literary, arts, criticism, and children’s supplements.[1] Alexander Penn edited its literary supplement during the 1950s and 1960s, contributing his own poems and songs as well as current-affairs columns under the pseudonym “Yud-Chet.”[1] The supplement also published early work by playwright Hanoch Levin and poet David Avidan.[1] Literary publication was therefore a recurring element of the paper rather than an occasional departure from its political coverage.[1]

Raoul Teitelbaum worked for Kol HaAm for twelve years as an economics reporter and Knesset commentator.[8] He was also a MAKI parliamentary candidate.[8] Following the newspaper’s closure, he moved to Yedioth Ahronoth, where he worked for thirty years as an economics reporter and Knesset correspondent.[8] His work at Kol HaAm included both economic journalism and coverage of parliamentary affairs, alongside his own participation in party politics.[8]

On March 18, 1953, Kol HaAm published a leading article titled “Let Abba Eban Go and Fight Alone...” in response to a Haaretz report about possible Israeli military assistance to the United States.[9] The report concerned an alleged agreement by Israel’s ambassador Abba Eban that Israel could provide 200,000 soldiers to the United States in a future war with the Soviet Union.[9] The editorial attacked the government over that reported prospect.[6]

Interior Minister Israel Rokach ordered temporary closures of Kol HaAm and the Arabic-language Communist newspaper Al-Ittihad following the critical articles.[10] The editorials accused the government of “provoking war” and “profiteering with the blood of young Israelis.”[6] The closure orders imposed ten days of suspension on Kol HaAm and fifteen days on Al-Ittihad.[6] Both newspaper administrations petitioned the High Court against the orders.[10]

The statutory basis was the Press Ordinance, which permitted suspension when a publication was judged “likely to endanger the public peace.”[6] The order against Kol HaAm was dated May 22, 1953, and identified the March 18 article as its basis.[9] The minister treated the publication as a danger to public peace, bringing the newspaper’s freedom to publish into direct conflict with the government’s claimed authority to prevent harm.[9]

The proceedings concerned more than the government’s disagreement with the editorial’s language or political position.[9] The Court examined whether the statutory power allowed suspension merely because an article had a tendency to endanger public peace, or whether a more demanding assessment of the probability and seriousness of harm was required.[9] Its judgment rejected the sufficiency of a mere tendency toward danger and required consideration of whether the anticipated danger was probable and grave enough to justify suspension.[9]

Justice Shimon Agranat wrote the ruling delivered on October 16, 1953.[9] The litigation is cited as HCJ 73/53, Kol Ha’am Company Ltd. v. Minister of Interior, 7 P.D. 871 (1953), and the published judgment also encompasses HCJ 87/53.[6][9] Agranat’s opinion was unanimous and treated freedom of speech as a cornerstone of Israeli democracy.[11]

The Court held that the closure decision against Kol HaAm had been wrongly issued and made the order nisi absolute.[9] Its reasoning established a “near certainty” test under which restrictions on speech required near certainty of substantial danger to public peace.[5] The minister’s broad statutory authority therefore did not, by itself, justify the suspension: its exercise had to satisfy the Court’s demanding assessment of anticipated harm.[5]

The decision applied a balancing approach grounded in democratic principles despite the broad language of the inherited Press Ordinance.[5] It recognized state security and public peace as interests to be weighed against freedom of opinion and expression rather than treating either side of the balance as irrelevant.[6] Agranat’s reasoning retained a broad conception of state security while insisting that individual rights should not be set aside where the particular actions did not threaten the state.[11]

The Kol HaAm judgment helped lay the foundation for freedom of expression in Israel by treating it as a “superior right” underpinning other civil liberties.[1] It significantly changed the place of rights in Israeli legal discourse and became an influential reference point for subsequent human-rights litigation.[11][6] The legislature and government complied with the ruling.[6]

Agranat developed this protection despite the absence of official legislation guaranteeing freedom of expression.[6] His interpretation drew on Israel’s democratic norms and the Declaration of Independence.[6] The Declaration was not itself constitutional law, but its expression of the people’s vision and fundamental beliefs was relevant to the interpretation of state legislation.[6] The ruling consequently gave the Declaration significance as an interpretive guide without treating it as a directly enacted constitutional guarantee.[11]

This approach extended to legislation inherited from the British Mandate.[12] In interpreting the Press Ordinance, Agranat read the statutory word “likely” as requiring “near certainty,” rather than allowing the minister to suspend publication on a less demanding assessment of danger.[12] The judgment thus connected a concrete dispute over a newspaper closure with the broader question of how inherited governmental powers should operate within Israel’s democratic legal order.[5][12]

The distinction between a tendency to cause danger and a sufficiently probable, grave danger was central to the Court’s practical reasoning.[9] Under that approach, identifying provocative or hostile language did not complete the legal assessment; the minister also had to evaluate the likelihood and seriousness of the harm that publication might produce.[9] The resulting standard preserved a role for protecting public peace while limiting the circumstances in which that interest could justify stopping a newspaper from appearing.[5]

The ruling’s treatment of freedom of expression also linked it to the operation of other civil liberties.[1] Its account of speech as a foundational right was accompanied by a balancing analysis rather than a conclusion that expression could never be restricted.[5] In a direct conflict between speech and another basic right, the governing threshold has also been summarized as near-certain, real, and substantial damage to the competing right.[13] The case has accordingly been presented as an early example of the Supreme Court’s engagement with democratic values and the “sanctity of freedom of speech.”[13]

Foreign constitutional reasoning also formed part of the judgment’s intellectual setting.[11] The decision quoted a passage from the American case Whitney v. The People of the State of California connecting freedom of thought, speech, and assembly with the discovery and spread of political truth.[11] The passage emphasized that discussion would be futile without free speech and assembly.[11]

The Jewish Review of Books interprets Agranat’s use of classic American cases and a modified version of Oliver Wendell Holmes’s “clear and present danger” standard as establishing a pattern of drawing on foreign law in Israeli jurisprudence.[14] It also regards the litigation as a turning point in the development of Israeli rights jurisprudence.[14] These assessments concern the decision’s wider intellectual and institutional influence, beyond the immediate cancellation of the newspaper’s suspension.[14]

The judgment constrained closure powers without immediately eliminating the broader regulatory structure governing newspapers.[15] The ruling substantially curtailed the practical use of the interior minister’s closure power, while the licensing requirement remained in force in 2007 and was then slated for abolition under proposed press legislation.[15] Protection against this kind of suspension and removal of the licensing requirement were therefore treated as separate legal questions.[15]

Kol HaAm’s cultural record also extended beyond the constitutional case.[1] Its literary supplement provided a venue for Penn’s poetry and commentary and for early work by Levin and Avidan.[1] Its surviving issues preserve reporting on labor, party politics, relations between Jews and Arabs, and international Communist affairs across several decades.[1] Those subjects sit alongside the legal case in the newspaper’s historical record rather than being displaced by its better-known association with freedom of expression.[1]

The digitized collection includes thousands of issues and tens of thousands of pages.[1] The main collection listing identifies holdings from August 1, 1937, through December 30, 1966, comprising 6,215 issues and 28,816 pages.[1] An issue-page listing gives broader coverage through December 31, 1970, with 7,165 issues and 33,193 pages.[1] These figures describe the coverage of digitized holdings, while the newspaper’s publication history continued to its final issue in June 1975.[1]

The allegation underlying the 1953 editorial was not an established Israeli commitment to send troops abroad.[9] Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion called the Haaretz report “a piece of journalistic imagination” and said Eban had instead spoken about Israel’s intention to defend its borders and form of government.[9] The newspaper’s attack on the government must therefore be distinguished from the policy it alleged, while the Court’s decision concerned the legality of suspension rather than confirmation of that allegation.[9]

The substantive legal controversy concerned how to reconcile political expression with state security and public peace.[6] The Court preserved the legitimacy of security interests but rejected suspension based merely on a publication’s tendency to cause danger.[9][11] Its protection of an oppositional Communist newspaper rested on the probability and gravity of anticipated harm, not on endorsement of the newspaper’s political assertions.[9]