Netanyahu Faces Dilemma Over Immunity in Former Shin Bet Chief's Lawsuit
Translated & summarized from Maariv by baba
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces a dilemma in a lawsuit filed by former Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar, regarding the use of parliamentary immunity. Invoking immunity could strengthen Bar's claims, according to legal expert Roi Tibi. Netanyahu must decide within 60 days whether to seek immunity, which would lead to a court review of his statements. If immunity is granted, the lawsuit would be dismissed, but the strategic implications could be detrimental.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces a legal dilemma over using immunity in a lawsuit by former Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar.
- Invoking immunity could potentially strengthen Bar's claims against Netanyahu, according to legal expert Roi Tibi.
- Netanyahu has 60 days to file a defense and must declare if he will use immunity.
- The court will review if Bar's publications were made in the line of duty if immunity is sought.
- Granting immunity would prevent the lawsuit from being heard, but could have strategic repercussions.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is presented with a significant legal and strategic dilemma concerning a substantial lawsuit filed against him by former Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar. The core of the issue lies in whether Netanyahu will invoke his parliamentary immunity, a move that could potentially bolster Bar's claims.
According to legal expert attorney Roi Tibi, Netanyahu has 60 days to file a defense and must declare his intention to use immunity. If he does, the court will examine whether Bar's publications fall under statements made in the line of duty. Should the court determine that some statements were not made for official duties, the lawsuit could be partially dismissed. However, if immunity is granted, the case would not proceed.
Tibi explained that the strategic question is not solely about immunity but about whether the claim will be raised. Ronen Bar is reportedly complaining about publications made by Netanyahu about him, which Netanyahu asserts are true. The law provides a defense for truth in publication, requiring the defendant, Netanyahu, to prove the veracity and public interest of his statements.
"If he claims truth but chooses to use immunity, it will strengthen Bar's claims," Tibi stated. The implication is that invoking immunity, while potentially shielding Netanyahu from the lawsuit, could be interpreted as an admission that his statements were not entirely truthful or made solely in his official capacity.
The same event, reported separately by each outlet. Open a few to compare what different newsrooms emphasize — and what they leave out.
Centre 2
Not the same event — other stories that share this one’s people, places, or theme: background, reactions, and follow-ups.
