A legal opinion by Prof. Barak Medina argues that the Knesset’s decision to grant MK Tali Gottlieb immunity from prosecution is unlawful and should be overturned by the High Court if petitioned. Medina says the plenary’s approval of the House Committee’s decision rests on two grounds, and both have already been rejected in past Supreme Court rulings.
Gottlieb is accused of violating the ban on revealing the identity of an Shin Bet operative, an offense punishable by up to three years in prison. The Knesset said immunity was justified because the attorney general’s decision to file the indictment was made “in bad faith or with discrimination.” Medina points to a 2005 case involving MK Gurlovsky, in which the Supreme Court required factual proof before such a serious accusation could be made against the attorney general, and later voided the committee’s decision when no basis was found.
He also rejects the claim that Gottlieb’s disclosure was protected parliamentary speech. Medina cites a 1995 ruling involving Benjamin Netanyahu, then opposition leader, who revealed a classified IDF document in the Knesset. The court said exposing secrets, especially in a way that endangers a specific operative, is not part of an MK’s protected duties. Netanyahu received immunity only because that disclosure was spontaneous, used to rebut an accusation during his speech, and the document did not identify fighters or agents, conditions Medina says do not apply to Gottlieb.
Medina stresses that immunity decisions deserve tighter judicial review than legislation because they apply the law to a specific person and involve a direct conflict of interest for lawmakers. He notes the immunity would last only until the current Knesset ends, at most four months, and would not automatically continue in the next Knesset. Still, he says an immediate ruling matters because the committee’s reasoning amounts to a grave attack on Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, whose position and even life, he warns, are under real threat amid incitement. He says the court must rebut the allegation to preserve confidence in her, the police, the Shin Bet, and the public service, especially ahead of the coming elections.
