From Begin to Gottlieb: How a Shin Bet Secret and an Immunity Bid Turned Into a Political Circus

From an immunity institution that stood like a solid wall in the days of Likud chairman Menachem Begin, we have arrived at a reality in which exposing the name of a Shin Bet agent becomes a lever for a political circus. Has Israeli politics lost its brakes, and what is the connection to the political bloc with the ultra-Orthodox? (Politics) Political circus in the discussion on MK Gottlieb's request | Photo: Knesset Channel

While the ordinary citizen is forced to bear the full weight of the law, our public officials enjoy a legal protection system that at times seems like a concrete wall impossible to breach. Israeli law, which adapts democratic models from around the world, has created two main layers of protection that an MK wears from the moment they take office.

The first and strongest is substantive immunity. Imagine a lifelong “get out of jail free” card. The law states that once an MK acts within the framework of their role, whether in a dramatic vote, a harsh statement from the podium, or any other act defined as part of parliamentary work, they are completely immune. They cannot be prosecuted, no lawsuits can be filed against them, and this immunity never expires. Even when they take off the MK’s suit and step down from the political stage, this “shield” continues to accompany them everywhere.

Alongside it is procedural immunity. Here the story is different. It is intended for cases in which an MK acted outside the “official” framework of the role. Here, the immunity is not absolute, and removing it requires legal and political procedures.

The parliamentary immunity that is now at the center of political storms was not born in a vacuum. It was intended to serve as a democratic flak jacket, a legal shield designed to ensure that an elected official could carry out their mission without fear of the system or political persecution. However, as the years passed and institutional tensions in Israel intensified, this proper protection turned into a complex legal battleground that raises sharp questions about the meaning of equality before the law. Many commentators criticize the current situation, saying it is a blatant exception to the principle of equality, a privilege that creates a class of “super-elected officials” above the public. Supporters, on the other hand, argue that without this protection, the system of government would paralyze the opposition and public criticism through gag lawsuits and targeted persecution.

In its long-standing approach, the Supreme Court chose to set a lenient test for applying this immunity. In its rulings, the High Court of Justice sought to ensure that even if a public official “slipped” during legitimate work into a borderline or unlawful act, they would not immediately be exposed to law enforcement systems. The central condition set was a substantive connection: as long as the essence of the act was carried out while performing the job or on its behalf, and as long as the unlawful drift was unplanned, the immunity may apply.

The historic protection has become, in practice, a legal armor for elected officials. In 1952, state institutions faced their first test of parliamentary freedom of expression. Menachem Begin, then chairman of the Herut movement, published a harsh article against a military court, and the attorney general at the time, Haim Cohn, sought to prosecute him. The person who stopped the move was then Knesset Speaker Yosef Sprinzak. In a bold and foundational step, Sprinzak refused to forward the request to strip Begin of his immunity and declared: political criticism, however harsh, is at the heart of an elected official’s work, and the legal system must not become a tool for silencing it.

That anecdote reminds us that immunity was meant to be a democratic flak jacket, a legal shield designed to ensure that an elected official could carry out their mission without fear of the system or political persecution. However, as the years passed and institutional tensions in Israel intensified, this proper protection turned into a complex battleground that raises sharp questions about equality before the law. Yet in an era in which the political arena has moved to social media and the style of confrontation has become more personal and aggressive, the question of where “public mission” ends and where a criminal offense begins has become a battle over the very character of Israeli democracy. The institution of immunity, once intended to protect the voice of the dissenter, now faces its real-world test.

MK Goldknopf participates in the discussion on MK Gottlieb (Photo: Knesset Channel, screenshot)

A decisive verdict: will the political bloc with the ultra-Orthodox save Gottlieb?

At the center of the storm stands MK Tali Gottlieb’s decision to reveal sensitive details about the partner of Shikma Bressler, one of the leaders of the protest against the government, and to link him to service in the Shin Bet. The shocking move led to an indictment against Gottlieb, which was transferred last month to the Knesset Committee and the Knesset Speaker. Gottlieb, for her part, did not stay silent and immediately announced that she would demand immunity protection. The Knesset Committee now faces a decisive ruling that could set a precedent.

Behind the political scenes, the picture is becoming clear: if the ultra-Orthodox factions join the coalition’s votes, approval of the immunity request appears to be a foregone conclusion. However, the road to immunity is full of legal pitfalls. Even if the committee grants the final approval and the plenum approves the move, the protection would be limited to the current term only. Moreover, experience shows that the final word may be decided in higher courts. As recalled, in 2020 the High Court intervened in similar matters when it heard petitions against granting immunity to Minister Haim Katz, a move that leaves room for future petitions that could derail the entire process and bring the affair before the Supreme Court.

Tali Gottlieb in a confrontation in the committee with Merav Ben Ari (Photo: Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

The battle for equality, has immunity become a fortress?

When looking at the stormy debates in the Knesset Committee surrounding the Tali Gottlieb case, it becomes clear that this is not only a legal dispute, but a clash between two opposing worldviews about the character of the state. In the committee room, the question was not only whether she violated the law, but the larger question of all, is the public official a representative of the people or a person above the law?

On one side stands the position of those who support broad immunity. Gottlieb and her supporters paint a picture of a hostile law-enforcement system that uses legal tools to silence criticism. “I acted in order to fulfill my duties,” she declares, repeatedly invoking the central argument, substantive immunity is the last line of defense for an elected official against political persecution. For many on the right, this is an existential struggle. They see investigations against politicians from the national camp as a modern witch hunt and argue that without airtight immunity, any MK who dares criticize the security agencies or the legal system will find themselves facing a police investigator.

On the other side stands the critics, led by bodies such as the Israel Democracy Institute and the Movement for Quality Government. For them, Gottlieb’s claims are not a defense of democracy, but its collapse. Their argument is clear, revealing the identity of a Shin Bet officer is not “an expression of opinion” but an act that could endanger lives. As stated in many publications by the institute, immunity granted for serious security or criminal offenses is a license for lawlessness. They warn that when a public official is immune from the consequences of their actions, they become a first-class citizen, while the ordinary citizen is required to obey every letter of the law.

This tension is giving rise to calls for a new arrangement, removing substantive immunity in cases of security offenses and moving to a model of procedural immunity only. The critics’ message is simple, substantive immunity is not immunity from accountability. In the end, the test of immunity is not only legal, it is a test of all of our morality.