The Knesset plenum debated on Wednesday whether to strip Likud MK Tally Gotliv of her parliamentary immunity. Before the debate began, fellow Likud MK Yuli Edelstein said on social media that he would vote to remove her immunity, arguing, “If Arab Knesset members had exposed the names of Mossad agents and Shin Bet officers, would we have stayed silent? That is why I will vote today in favor of removing immunity.”
Two days earlier, the Knesset House Committee approved the request to lift Gotliv’s immunity and sent the final decision to the plenum. Committee chairman also informed MKs Ahmed Tibi and Walid Taha that they would not be allowed to take part in the immunity vote, after it emerged they had not met the required 50% attendance threshold in the committee’s relevant discussions, which is a binding condition for the final ballot.
The dispute comes amid reports about a classified Shin Bet opinion that, according to three MKs who saw it, said unequivocally that Gotliv endangered a service agent, the agent’s children, and family. Those lawmakers said the secret document cited real examples of exposed Shin Bet employees whose lives were significantly harmed, and stressed that a post or statement by an Israeli official, such as an MK, is taken very seriously by the enemy and creates a concrete security risk.
Separately, the Central District Court partially rejected Gotliv’s request in a lawsuit filed by Prof. Shikma Bressler, one of the leaders of the anti-judicial overhaul protests, ruling that “any factual publication about Prof. Bressler’s husband is not protected by immunity.” Bressler is seeking NIS 2.6 million over Gotliv’s claims that former Mossad chief David Barnea met with her and that the United States intercepted calls between her husband and former Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar days before October 7. Bressler is also suing six social media activists who shared Gotliv’s remarks, including entertainer Meni Asayag and Smadar Hila Shmueli. Gotliv accused the court of “working in the service of Kaplan protest figures,” while Bressler’s lawyer said the ruling was important for the rule of law and equality before the law.
