A legal opinion by Prof. Barak Medina says the Knesset’s decision to grant MK Tali Gottlieb immunity from prosecution is unlawful and should be struck down if petitioned to the High Court of Justice. The article says the vote rested on two arguments, and both have already been rejected by the court in past cases.
Gottlieb has been charged with exposing the identity of an Shin Bet operative, an offense punishable by up to three years in prison. The Knesset justified immunity by claiming the attorney general’s decision to file charges was made in bad faith or with discrimination. Medina cites a 2005 case involving MK Roman Bronfman? No, the article refers to MK Gorolovsky, where the High Court required factual support for such accusations and later voided the committee’s decision when none was found.
The second justification, that Gottlieb’s disclosure was part of her parliamentary duties and therefore protected, is also described as inconsistent with precedent. Medina points to a 1995 High Court ruling in a case involving Benjamin Netanyahu, then opposition leader, which held that revealing secrets, especially in a way that endangers a specific operative, is not covered by parliamentary immunity. In Netanyahu’s case, immunity applied only because the disclosure was spontaneous, unplanned, used to rebut an attack during a speech, and did not identify operatives.
Medina argues Gottlieb’s case is the opposite, saying she revealed the operative’s identity to advance what he calls a “terrible blood libel.” He adds that although the immunity would expire with the current Knesset within about four months, a ruling now is important because the committee’s rationale amounts to a political attack on Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara. He says a judicial ruling is needed to protect her standing with the police, Shin Bet, public administration, and the public, especially before the upcoming elections.
