Deputy A-G: No conflict for PM to be involved in law on protests

Petitions have already been filed to the High Court of Justice to strike down the limits on mass protests.

By YONAH JEREMY BOB
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu gives a press statement at the PM's office in Jerusalem, on August 13, 2020. (photo credit: YONATAN SINDEL/FLASH90)
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu gives a press statement at the PM's office in Jerusalem, on August 13, 2020.
(photo credit: YONATAN SINDEL/FLASH90)
There is no limitation on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to weigh in on rules for balancing the right to protest with coronavirus considerations for public health, Deputy Attorney-General Dina Zilber told the Fortress of Democracy NGO on Thursday.
The issue is controversial on multiple fronts.
First, the thrust of the protests is against Netanyahu and demanding he resign due to his impending public corruption trial.
Because of that background, the Blue and White Party extensively delayed Netanyahu from limiting mass protests until the country went into full lockdown mode and circumscribed the ban to only a few weeks.
Petitions have been filed to the High Court of Justice to strike down the limits on mass protests.
Second, the Attorney-General’s Office has been fighting a legal and public-relations war with Netanyahu to get him to sign off on a commitment not to intervene with law-enforcement appointments or legislation related to his trial.
Though Zilber explained that balancing public health with the right to protest was not among the issues Netanyahu must recuse himself from, Fortress of Democracy said such a position was willful ignorance to Netanyahu’s interest in cracking down on dissent related to the charges against him.
Zilber said the very nature of protests was that they are always against the government, and this did not mean that government officials lose the power to maintain public order or public health.
The High Court already signaled on Wednesday that it would not rush in to save the protests, declining to set a hearing date and only requiring the state to respond after Sukkot when the ban may already have expired or be close to expiring.