Rights9/29/2026

Dispute Over Shin Bet’s Duty to Protect Party Leaders Reaches the High Court of Justice

The Democrats party filed an urgent petition with the High Court of Justice, demanding that the state and the Shin Bet be ordered to provide immediate security for the party’s chairman, Yair Golan. The Court ordered the state to respond urgently, but the source does not present a final ruling on the merits of the dispute.

Key facts

•Petitioner: the Democrats party
•Person for whom protection is sought: Yair Golan
•Court: High Court of Justice
•Threat level: 4 out of 6
•Statutory provision: Section 7 of the General Security Service Law
•The case number and final decision were not specified

Why the Party Turned to the Court

According to the information presented in the petition, the police assessed the threat level against Yair Golan as high—4 out of 6. The party also reported hundreds of direct death threats and Golan’s mention in a threatening letter attached to a brick that was thrown at a Channel 12 News studio. This information is presented as the position of the Democrats; the source does not include an independent assessment of the evidence by the Court.

The Incident in Beersheba

According to the party, during a public gathering in Beersheba, its staff discovered messages on WhatsApp, Telegram and other networks about preparations for a violent gathering that included calls for violence. Golan, who was accompanied only by unarmed private security guards, was evacuated from the event in accordance with an emergency evacuation plan. The party believes this incident proves that private security is insufficient.

The Shin Bet’s Position and the Legal Dispute

After the High Court of Justice ordered an urgent response to the petition, the Shin Bet announced that it would provide intelligence support and assist in obtaining firearms licenses for private security guards hired by party leaders. The Democrats viewed this as an attempt to transfer the state’s responsibility to private companies. The party relies on Section 7 of the General Security Service Law, which assigns the service duties to protect the democratic system and its institutions, and argues that this gives rise to a duty to provide state security protection.

The Court’s Decision Has Not Yet Been Specified

The report indicates only that the High Court of Justice ordered the state’s response to be submitted urgently. The source does not state the case number, the date of the judicial decision or a final conclusion on whether the service is required to provide direct security for Yair Golan or other party leaders. Accordingly, the legal scope of such a duty remains unresolved on the basis of this report.

What this means for you

The dispute concerns who should ensure the safety of party leaders in the face of serious threats: a state service or private security guards hired by the party. For participants in political events, a possible ruling by the High Court of Justice could define the limits of the state’s responsibility, but the source presented does not indicate that such a binding precedent has already been established.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings