← All news
Rights

Haymanot Kassau’s Family Challenges Refusal of Protest Tent Near PM’s Office

The parents of missing child Haymanot Kassau and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel petitioned the Jerusalem District Court after the municipality refused permission for a month-long protest tent near the Prime Minister’s Office. They argue that the refusal relies on general concerns and disproportionately restricts freedom of protest.

Key facts

  • Court: Jerusalem District Court
  • Petition reported filed on 17 September 2026
  • Requested protest period: 23 September–22 October 2026
  • Proposed site: Zusman and Kaplan streets, Jerusalem
  • Municipal request filed 15 September and refused 16 September
  • No case number or court ruling stated in the source

A family’s continuing campaign

Haymanot disappeared from the absorption center in Safed where her family lived on 25 February 2024, when she was nine years old. Extensive searches followed, and the investigation was transferred to Lahav 433, but she had still not been found about two and a half years later. Her parents, Tsefia and Benchi Kassau, have organized public protests demanding greater efforts to locate her.

The municipality’s refusal

The family sought to erect a protest tent in Jerusalem’s government district from 23 September to 22 October 2026. After earlier attempts to obtain permission at other Jerusalem locations, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel submitted a formal request on 15 September for a site near the Prime Minister’s Office, at the junction of Zusman and Kaplan streets. The following day, the municipality’s legal adviser rejected it, citing possible sanitation, safety and accessibility problems and interference with public use of the area.

The legal challenge

The parents and the civil-rights organization petitioned the Jerusalem District Court and requested an urgent hearing. They contend that freedom of protest is a constitutional right of the highest order and that areas near government institutions are especially important places for exercising it. Although the municipality may regulate tents and other protest structures placed on public land, the petition argues that any restrictions must protect freedom of expression and assembly and remain proportionate.

No court outcome yet

According to the petitioners, the city identified no specific hazard or concrete danger expected from this tent and instead relied on broad concerns and a blanket municipal policy. They say the municipality failed to balance its responsibility for public space against the parents’ right to address decision-makers. The source reports the filing of the petition but does not state that the court has ruled on it.

What this means for you

The case concerns how far an Israeli municipality may regulate a prolonged protest structure in public space, particularly near national government offices. For ordinary people seeking to establish a protest tent, the dispute highlights that municipalities may consider sanitation, safety, accessibility and public use, while restrictions may be challenged as disproportionate if based only on general concerns. No practical rule has yet been established because the source does not report a judicial decision.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings

Latest legal news