The Case for Immunity for Tally Gotliv Undermines Her Own Bill

There is no shortage of reasons for the Knesset committee to reject MK Tally Gotliv’s request for immunity today, and they all relate to the act itself, revealing the identity of an Shin Bet officer. Shin Bet chief David Zini strongly supported filing the indictment, in order not to normalize exposing service members. In addition, Gotliv was repeatedly told that the story she was publishing about the fighter was entirely fabricated, and confirmation of that also came with the defense minister’s signing of a confidentiality certificate, which will allow classified evidence to be used in court to prove that Gotliv did not tell the truth. Even so, the MK did not delete the post, and instead insisted on her right to defame and publicly reveal the identity of the security officer.

Still, the main reason for rejecting the request, even for instrumental reasons, should be demanded by the coalition. The main bill Gotliv herself is promoting requires a vote of 75 Knesset members as a condition for investigating or indicting an MK. Gotliv also explained that the proposal was born out of her personal experience, after she was summoned for questioning, the MK decided it would be proper that she should not be summoned. In a way that cannot be reconciled with the demand to amend the law, the MK today is arguing the exact opposite in her immunity request.

According to Gotliv, revealing the Shin Bet officer’s name was necessary for her to carry out her role, a claim that is absurd in itself, and therefore it falls under the “substantive immunity” of Knesset members. That is why, she explained, she refused to appear for questioning by the police or for the hearing before the indictment was filed. If the correct interpretation of existing law expands “substantive immunity” to such an extent that a Knesset vote is required as a condition for summoning an MK for questioning, just to determine whether the immunity indeed applies, then ostensibly there is no need to amend the law.

However, the law, at least as it stands today, does not allow an ex ante exemption for Knesset members. Gotliv knows this too, otherwise she would not have submitted the bill. In the bill itself, at least on the merits, there is room for discussion. Until 2005, the legal situation was similar to the one Gotliv is seeking, and the attorney general was required to ask the Knesset to lift an MK’s immunity. The default was reversed, so that the MK is the one who must request immunity, following public criticism after the Knesset refused to lift the immunity of MKs Hazan and Gorlovsky in the “double voting affair.”

The coalition’s argument, if presented coherently, is that the continuing tension between the judiciary and the legislature requires reversing the burden of persuasion once again. The attorney general could interpret the leaking of protocols from the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, for example, as an offense committed in the course of an MK’s duties, and could also decide otherwise. The debate over whether the attorney general should decide the matter or the Knesset itself is at the heart of the judicial overhaul controversy.

But all of this is theoretical hair-splitting that crashes into the reality of today’s debate in the Knesset Committee. In the parliamentary spectacle in which the judicial system is openly accused of aiding “treason” around October 7, senior coalition figures are arriving to express support, and the MK seeking immunity is presenting an argument that undermines her own bill, no one can suspect the coalition of having an substantive motive for dealing with the issue of immunity for Knesset members. Thus, the hearing initiated by Gotliv is the best justification against her own immunity law.

More on the subject, on the way to an indictment against Gotliv: Minister Katz signed a confidentiality certificate. She spread conspiracies: a new lawsuit against MK Tally Gotliv