Israeli Court Upholds Immunity for MK Tali Gottlieb in Defamation Case Filed by Yair Golan

The Central District Court in Lod rejected an appeal by Yair Golan, chairman of the Democratic Party, against Member of Knesset Tali Gottlieb, upholding parliamentary immunity in a defamation lawsuit. Golan had sued Gottlieb for 500,000 shekels over her public statements linking him to a spy affair, but the court ruled that her comments were protected by the substantive immunity granted to Knesset members.

The case involved five publications by Gottlieb between December 23, 2024, and January 9, 2025, where she questioned Golan's possible connection to the "southern espionage affair" and why he had not been investigated. Gottlieb suggested Golan should explain his ties to an individual accused in the espionage case and claimed he was being targeted by various actors. Although she admitted uncertainty about his involvement, she argued for further investigation.

The espionage case concerned Asaf Shmuelovitz, who was charged with impersonating a captain in the IDF during the October 7 attack, obtaining classified information, and passing it to unauthorized parties. Gottlieb's claims were based on a notebook seized from Shmuelovitz containing Golan's name and phone number. Judge Avi Shtayv stated that even if this information was accurate, it only constituted a preliminary indication, not a real suspicion of wrongdoing by Golan.

The court sharply criticized Gottlieb for exaggerating the allegations and presenting a conspiracy theory far removed from reality, which forced Golan to face unfounded accusations. The judges noted that the statements appeared planned and intended to harm Golan politically, but since the comments were made in a political context, immunity applied. The court emphasized that calling for an investigation into a matter of public interest falls within a Knesset member's role, even if the suspicions are overstated.

The appeal was unanimously dismissed, but the court declined to order Golan to pay legal costs, partly due to Gottlieb's disruptive behavior during proceedings. The ruling clarified that the decision did not endorse Gottlieb's conduct but recognized the protection afforded to political speech under parliamentary immunity.