By: Fern Sidman

Israel’s flagship carrier, long viewed as both a commercial enterprise and a national institution, now finds itself under intensifying scrutiny as regulators move toward imposing substantial financial penalties over alleged price-gouging during the country’s prolonged war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. According to reports first published by Israel’s Channel 12 News and extensively analyzed by The Jewish News Syndicate (JNS), EL AL is expected to be fined tens of millions of shekels following a months-long investigation by Israel’s Competition Authority—a development that has reignited debate over corporate responsibility in times of national crisis.

As JNS reported on Tuesday, the investigation focuses on the extraordinary market conditions that prevailed during the two-year conflict, when most foreign airlines suspended flights to and from Israel due to security concerns. In that vacuum, EL AL emerged as a virtual monopoly in Israel’s skies, becoming, for many Israelis, the sole reliable means of international travel. With demand surging and supply sharply constrained, airfares soared to unprecedented levels—fueling both record-breaking profits for the airline and mounting public resentment.

Financial data from the period, cited repeatedly by JNS, reveal that EL AL’s profits over the past two years far exceeded historical norms. Routes to Europe and North America, in particular, saw ticket prices climb to record highs, even as travelers—many facing family emergencies, military obligations, or urgent relocations—had little choice but to fly. Critics argue that this imbalance created conditions ripe for exploitation, prompting regulators to examine whether EL AL abused its dominant market position.

At the heart of the Competition Authority’s probe is the question of intent and proportionality. As the JNS report explained, Israeli competition law permits intervention when a company holding a dominant or monopolistic position exploits consumers through excessive pricing. Investigators are reportedly assessing whether EL AL’s fare increases reflected legitimate operational costs—such as heightened security expenses and insurance premiums—or whether they crossed the line into unlawful profiteering during wartime.

The investigation’s scope extends beyond the corporate entity itself. Regulators are also considering imposing a personal financial sanction on EL AL’s former chief executive officer, Dina Ben Tal Ganancia. Such a move would be highly consequential, signaling a willingness to hold senior executives individually accountable for strategic decisions made during periods of crisis. While no final determination has been announced, the possibility alone underscores the seriousness with which authorities are approaching the case.

Adding further pressure, EL AL is simultaneously facing a separate civil lawsuit seeking damages in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The lawsuit alleges systematic price-gouging throughout the wartime period, claiming that passengers were subjected to exorbitant fares precisely when alternatives were unavailable. If successful, the suit could eclipse regulatory fines and establish a powerful precedent for consumer protection during national emergencies.

EL AL has vigorously denied all allegations. In statements cited by JNS, the airline maintains that its pricing reflected market realities rather than exploitation, emphasizing that it operated under extreme conditions while maintaining critical air links to Israel. Company representatives have pointed to sharply increased operating costs, including security measures, staffing challenges, and insurance premiums, arguing that higher fares were both necessary and lawful.

Supporters of the airline echo these claims, noting that EL AL shouldered risks and responsibilities that foreign carriers declined to assume. For much of the conflict EL AL functioned not merely as a business, but as a strategic lifeline—transporting reservists, evacuees, and essential personnel when few others would. From this perspective, critics of the investigation warn that punitive measures could discourage airlines from maintaining service during future crises.

Yet consumer advocates counter that national service does not exempt a company from ethical constraints. JNS has highlighted voices arguing that EL AL’s unique status carried an implicit moral obligation to balance profitability with solidarity, particularly when travelers were navigating fear, loss, and uncertainty. For these critics, the airline’s financial windfall during wartime is difficult to reconcile with the collective sacrifices borne by the public.

The controversy has also sparked broader reflection on the intersection of free-market principles and national resilience. Israel prides itself on a competitive economy, yet moments of existential threat often blur the line between private enterprise and public trust. The EL AL case, analysts say, may become a defining test of how regulators enforce competition law when ordinary market dynamics are distorted by war.

International observers are watching closely as well. Aviation analysts cited by JNS suggest that the outcome could influence regulatory approaches in other countries facing similar crises, from geopolitical conflicts to natural disasters. If EL AL is found to have violated competition laws, it could set a benchmark for how monopolistic behavior is judged during emergencies—both in Israel and beyond.

For now, the process remains ongoing. The Competition Authority has not yet issued a final ruling, and EL AL continues to contest the allegations. Nevertheless, the convergence of regulatory scrutiny, potential executive sanctions, and massive civil litigation ensures that the issue will remain at the forefront of public discourse.

As the JNS report emphasized, the stakes extend far beyond balance sheets and legal filings. At issue is the question of whether a national carrier—entrusted, implicitly or explicitly, with serving the public during its most vulnerable moments—can be permitted to maximize profit without restraint when alternatives disappear. The answer, regulators suggest, may redefine expectations for corporate conduct in times of war.

Whether EL AL ultimately emerges vindicated or sanctioned, the case has already forced a reckoning—one that challenges Israelis to reconsider how national institutions should behave when the country is under fire.