Democracies often reveal themselves not through the cases that are easy but through the ones that are uncomfortable.
Few figures in Israeli politics inspire stronger reactions than Likud MK Tally Gotliv. To her supporters, she is a fearless truth-teller who is willing to challenge institutions that many Israelis have come to distrust. To her critics, she is a provocateur whose rhetoric frequently crosses lines that public officials should respect.
It is precisely because opinions about her are so deeply entrenched that the debate surrounding her request for parliamentary immunity deserves to be viewed through a wider lens.
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 exists for an important reason. Democracies require elected officials who can challenge powerful institutions without fear of political retaliation.
MKs must be able to criticize the government, the courts, the military, and the security establishment. They must be free to ask uncomfortable questions and express unpopular opinions. Without such protections, parliamentary oversight becomes little more than theater.
But immunity was never intended to place lawmakers above the law.
Lawmakers are not above the law
The distinction matters. 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. The purpose of immunity is to navigate that tension, not erase it.
That principle is particularly important in Israel today.
The years leading up to and following the October 7 massacre have produced a profound crisis of trust. Confidence in political leaders has eroded. Public faith in state institutions has weakened.
Every controversy increasingly becomes a tribal test in which citizens are expected to choose sides. The courts are either defenders of democracy or enemies of it. The Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) is either beyond criticism or part of a conspiracy. The government is either saving the nation or destroying it.
Lost in this atmosphere is a simpler democratic truth: Institutions are neither sacred nor criminal by default. They are accountable. So are elected officials.
The debate over Gotliv’s immunity therefore extends beyond the particulars of one case. It is a test of whether Israelis still believe that public office carries responsibilities as well as privileges.
If parliamentary immunity automatically applies whenever an MK claims to be acting in the public interest, then immunity ceases to be a limited protection and becomes a blanket exemption. Such an approach would undermine the very principle of equality before the law that democratic societies depend upon.
We all should be expected to answer for our actions
Ordinary citizens are expected to answer for their actions. Elected officials should not be categorically exempt from that expectation.
At the same time, lawmakers should be careful not to weaken legitimate parliamentary protections in pursuit of a short-term political victory. Today’s controversial politician may be tomorrow’s opposition whistle-blower.
Immunity exists because democratic systems recognize that power can be abused from multiple directions. The challenge is preserving that safeguard without allowing it to become a loophole.
This is why the Knesset should approach the issue with restraint and seriousness rather than partisanship. The goal should not be to reward or punish a particular politician. The goal should be to preserve public confidence in the principle itself.
Israel has spent years trapped in cycles of institutional warfare, where every dispute becomes a referendum on the legitimacy of the system. The result has been a public increasingly convinced that rules apply only to political opponents.
That perception is corrosive. A nation cannot sustain democratic trust if every legal question is interpreted exclusively through the lens of tribal loyalty.
The broader lesson of the Gotliv case is therefore straightforward: Parliamentary immunity is an essential democratic protection. It allows lawmakers to speak freely, challenge authority, and represent their constituents without intimidation. But immunity is not impunity. It was designed to protect democratic debate, not to eliminate accountability.
Whatever one thinks of Tally Gotliv, that distinction is worth defending. Because once immunity becomes synonymous with exemption, it ceases to protect democracy and begins to weaken it.
Source:
www.jpost.com
