From Shlomo Lavi to Tali Gotliv, the Stormy History of Knesset Immunity

"I informed the police that I would ask the Knesset to remove my immunity, in preparation for this criminal trial. I will never reach peace of mind unless I am tried properly like every citizen in Israel," Knesset member Shlomo Lavi of Mapai announced to the Knesset House Committee, which convened to discuss his case. The discussion, held in August 1954, was the first case in history in which a Knesset member’s immunity was removed. Lavi, a member of Ein Harod and one of the fathers of the kibbutz movement, was called by David Ben-Gurion "the most wonderful man of the Second Aliyah" (his two sons, Yerubavel and Hillel, were killed in the War of Independence). On one of his trips to the Knesset, he struck a laborer who had stepped onto the road in Wadi Ara. Although a police investigation found that he was not responsible for the accident, Lavi demanded that the investigation continue, that he be tried, and that the judges decide the question of his responsibility. "It cannot enter anyone’s mind, because the matter happened with a Knesset member, that the issue be blurred. The trial must take place in all its exact legal details," he wrote, and he even resigned from the Knesset until the proceedings ended. In the end, he was convicted of causing death through negligence that did not amount to criminal negligence, and fined 100 lira, after it was determined that he had not sounded a warning horn. Ben-Gurion called him "the most wonderful man of the Second Aliyah."

72 years have passed, and this week the question of an elected official’s immunity once again came before the Knesset House Committee, this time regarding Knesset member Tali Gotliv. Not only has the style of speech of elected officials changed since then, what has changed mainly is the position of those Knesset members whose parliamentary immunity is hanging over their heads. While Gotliv is fighting to receive immunity, Lavi in his day fought to give it up. The Gotliv storm once again raises a fundamental question that has accompanied the Knesset since its earliest days: Is immunity intended to protect the Knesset member himself, or only his ability to perform his public role without fear of pressure and legal proceedings?

Since the establishment of the state, the institution of immunity has undergone a profound transformation. For more than five decades, Knesset members enjoyed automatic procedural immunity, and the Knesset had to vote proactively to remove it in order to allow prosecution. Following growing public criticism, the law was changed in 2005, and since then the situation has been reversed: Knesset members no longer enjoy automatic immunity, and anyone seeking protection from criminal proceedings must appeal to the committee and persuade the Knesset to grant it.

Six years after Lavi’s immunity was removed, the Knesset House Committee made a similar decision, again because of a traffic offense. This time, however, it was a government minister who stood trial, Agriculture Minister Moshe Dayan. In early 1958, Dayan completed his term as IDF chief of staff, gained great popularity, and nearly two years later was elected to the Fourth Knesset. In the meantime, he was involved in a car accident after failing to obey a stop sign at the Beit Lid junction. It later emerged that for two years he had driven while his driver’s license was invalid. By the time the trial date arrived, he was already serving as a Knesset member, and his immunity had to be removed, which was indeed done. It turns out that traffic offenses by elected officials were fairly common then, mainly because they drove their own cars rather than sitting in the back seat. In 1966, another elected official was involved in an accident: Knesset member Mordechai Surkis tried to "steal" a traffic light and caused a collision. He too asked to waive his immunity, stood trial and was convicted.

A substantive and fundamental discussion of the immunity issue took place in 1965, when Yitzhak Rafael, one of the leaders of the National Religious Party and deputy health minister, was suspected of involvement in a bribery affair. The attorney general asked to indict him, and for that purpose the Knesset had to remove his immunity, a move that sparked a heated public and political debate. Opponents of removing immunity argued that the Knesset was not supposed to serve as a "rubber stamp" for the prosecution. Supporters of the removal, by contrast, took an uncompromising line. An opinion piece in Haaretz wrote at the time: "Precisely because of the broad immunity granted by the Knesset to its members, the House Committee must be careful not to exceed its authority or misuse it. The Knesset’s role is to examine whether the alleged offense was committed within the framework of the Knesset member’s role as a member of Knesset, or whether the indictment was filed in order to harm, harass, or annoy the Knesset member for political reasons. The House Committee is not authorized to decide the question of a Knesset member’s guilt. Removing immunity does not mean taking a position on the substance of the matter." The debate in the Knesset plenum was described at the time as a particularly dramatic event. Yehoshua Bitzur, a reporter for Maariv, described the tense atmosphere in the chamber: "A grave and heavy mood prevailed yesterday in the Knesset. The benches of the house were full and packed with elected officials who followed Rafael’s rhetorical battle for the cleansing of his tarnished name with bated breath." Bitzur added: "Rafael was very pale when he took the podium. However, he read his remarks for a full 40 minutes in a forceful and confident voice. His accusations against examining judge Golan and the attorney general Ben-Ze’ev caused astonishment in the chamber." In the end, Rafael’s immunity was removed, he was indicted, and his trial ended in an acquittal for lack of evidence.

Over the years, Knesset members committed fewer traffic offenses, but increasingly stumbled in matters of integrity. From the second half of the 1970s onward, investigations multiplied in cases of bribery, fraud, breach of trust and false corporate records. Another erosion in the status of immunity came when Knesset members began rejecting requests by the attorney general to remove it, as happened, for example, in the cases of Naomi Blumenthal, Yehiel Hazan and Michael Gorlovsky. Until that point, removing immunity had for decades been seen as a nearly automatic procedure, and it was rare for the Knesset to refuse the attorney general’s request. The Israeli public, which viewed broad immunity as a kind of "sanctuary city" for elected officials, expressed growing discontent, and the courts also issued harsh criticism. Public pressure paid off, and in 2005 the law was fundamentally changed: automatic immunity was abolished, and the default was set so that a Knesset member would stand trial just like any other citizen, unless he or she actively asked the Knesset to grant immunity. In effect, the burden of proof was reversed, instead of the Knesset being required to initiate a move to remove immunity, the Knesset member is the one who must persuade colleagues why he or she deserves it.

Since the law was changed, the only one who has received immunity. Haim Katz / Government Press Office

Once Knesset members fought to give up immunity, she is trying not to have it removed. Gotliv / Flash 90, Yonatan Sindel

In 2010, MK Said Naffa was the first to request immunity under the new format, after the attorney general decided to indict him for a visit to Syria and contact with a foreign agent. Naffa claimed selective enforcement and harm to his representation of his voters, but the House Committee rejected his request; he was indicted and convicted in court. In 2020, Benjamin Netanyahu also requested immunity in the "case files" affairs, arguing that the investigative proceedings were tainted by substantial defects, but in the end he withdrew the request and the trial against him was opened. Since the law was changed, Haim Katz is the only Knesset member who has been granted immunity under the new format. Katz, who was then serving as labor and welfare minister, was accused of fraud and breach of trust in a case involving the advancement of legislation concerning a securities company in which his friend and financial adviser held a stake. After the indictment was filed, Katz asked the Knesset to grant him immunity, arguing that he had acted within the scope of his public role and for the good of the public. The Knesset accepted his request with regard to the breach of trust count, but later Katz reached a plea deal, admitted to the lesser offense of conspiracy to achieve a lawful objective by unlawful means, and was sentenced to probation and a fine. Now, Tali Gotliv is also trying to pass the same political and legal hurdle and regain the parliamentary shield of protection.