Immunity is not impunity: Gotliv case tests Israel’s democratic protections

The debate surrounding Likud MK Tally Gotliv's request for parliamentary immunity is testing the foundations of Israeli democracy. The core question is whether immunity, designed to protect elected officials from political retaliation and enable robust oversight, is being exploited as a shield from legal accountability.

“

The Gotliv debate underscores a simple truth for Israeli democracy: immunity safeguards debate, but it cannot eliminate legal responsibility.

Gotliv, a figure who elicits strong reactions, is seen by supporters as a truth-teller challenging distrusted institutions, while critics view her as a provocateur whose rhetoric crosses acceptable lines. This deeply divided opinion makes the immunity debate a crucial test, extending beyond her individual case to the broader principle of whether lawmakers are above the law.

“

The question before the Knesset is not whether one likes Tally Gotliv. It is whether parliamentary immunity remains a shield for democratic representation or becomes a shelter from accountability.

Parliamentary immunity is vital for democracies, allowing MKs to criticize the government, courts, and military without fear. This protection is essential for effective parliamentary oversight. However, the principle is not absolute; it aims to balance the need for free expression with the necessity of legal scrutiny. Immunity should not become a tool to evade responsibility.

“

But immunity was never intended to place lawmakers above the law.

In Israel's current climate, marked by a profound crisis of trust following the October 7 massacre, this distinction is particularly critical. Public faith in leaders and institutions has eroded, leading to a tribalistic atmosphere where institutions are often seen as either defenders or enemies. The Gotliv case forces a confrontation with the democratic truth that both institutions and elected officials must be accountable.

“

A democracy cannot function if prosecutors are permitted to silence elected representatives through politically motivated investigations. It also cannot function if elected officials are able to avoid legal scrutiny simply by invoking their office.