Judge Rami Haimovitz dealt a mixed ruling in the defamation case filed by protest activist Prof. Shikma Bressler against MK Tali Gottlieb. He dismissed large parts of the lawsuit at the outset, but left the most serious allegations to be tried in full court proceedings.
For Bressler, the ruling is being framed as a major win on the central claim that parliamentary immunity is not a license to lie. The court said Gottlieb cannot rely on substantive immunity for the gravest accusations she repeated, including her claim that Bressler allegedly met with Mossad chief David Barnea and that Bressler’s husband had family ties to Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar.
That means Gottlieb will have to defend those allegations in a regular defamation trial, including taking the witness stand and presenting proof for her claims. If she loses, she could face a heavy financial penalty.
At the same time, Gottlieb’s circle also portrayed the decision as a significant victory and the rejection of a gag-style lawsuit. The court accepted that broad portions of Bressler’s complaint should never have reached trial, and struck them out. It ruled that Gottlieb’s political opinions, her criticism of the protest movement, and her remarks about the failures of October 7 and the responsibility of protest leaders are fully protected by parliamentary immunity, allowing her to continue publicly attacking Bressler without fear of civil damages.
