High Court to weigh direct Shin Bet protection over private security for Democrats chair Yair Golan

The High Court of Justice is scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday over whether intelligence monitoring and armed private guards are enough to protect Democrats chairman Yair Golan, or whether the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) must guard him directly during the final three weeks of the election campaign.

Supreme Court President Isaac Amit and Justices Ofer Grosskopf and Ruth Ronnen are scheduled to hear the petition at 1 p.m.

Golan and the Democrats petitioned the court last week (September 29), asking it to order immediate Shin Bet protection at least until the October 27 election results are published, and afterward according to an updated threat assessment.

The state responded Thursday that it had already begun implementing a new security framework for party leaders. It did not, however, commit to providing Golan with a Shin Bet close-protection detail.

The framework followed a top-secret decision adopted by the Ministerial Committee for Shin Bet Affairs on September 16, nearly two weeks before the petition was filed.

Following that decision, the Shin Bet reviewed the available intelligence and security measures and devised a response tailored to the threat facing each party leader, the state said.

The plan applies to party leaders contesting the election who are not ministers or members of Knesset and are not already protected because of a previous position. Relevant Shin Bet officials intend to contact Golan shortly, the state said.

Under the arrangements announced publicly by the agency, Shin Bet intelligence units will monitor threats against all party leaders and help build an updated picture of the danger surrounding each of them.

Democrats argues state responsible for protecting politicians

Party leaders who want physical protection will be able to hire private security companies whose guards may carry weapons even without specific intelligence pointing to a concrete threat. The Shin Bet will coordinate with those private teams and conduct periodic assessments to determine the appropriate level of protection.

The Democrats rejected that model when it was announced, arguing that the state was shifting responsibility for protecting threatened political leaders to private companies.

The dispute now before the court is whether the measures offered by the Shin Bet are sufficient, or whether the circumstances require direct Shin Bet protection.

Petition documents dozens of threats

According to the petition, the head of the Israel Police unit responsible for threatened individuals informed Golan’s office approximately a month before the filing that the threat level against him had been raised to four on a six-point scale.

The petition documents dozens of threats posted between July and late September, including calls to shoot or hang Golan and messages threatening members of his family.

It also says Golan’s name appeared in a death-threat letter attached to a brick thrown at Channel 12’s studios on July 27. According to the petition, he was the only party leader named as a target in the letter.

The petitioners said they made three written approaches seeking state protection. They sent letters dated August 25 and September 2 to the chairman of the Central Elections Committee and copied security and legal officials.

The party sent a third request directly to Shin Bet Director David Zini on September 22. It sought a response by September 27 and warned that the party would petition the High Court if it received no decision.

None of the three approaches had been answered by the time the Democrats filed the petition.

The state’s response indicates that officials had begun addressing the broader question of protecting party leaders before the petition. It does not say, however, that the September 16 decision or its practical implications had been communicated to Golan.

Under Section 7 of the Shin Bet Law, the agency must protect people designated by the government. Golan argues that the threats against him, his position as a party leader, and the public demands of an election campaign require state protection rather than reliance primarily on a privately hired company.

The petition also argues that leaving a threatened candidate without state protection restricts his ability to appear before voters and campaign on equal terms.

The state said the exact measures approved for party leaders are classified and can be presented to the judges only behind closed doors, without Golan or his lawyers present.

Grosskopf declined to order immediate protection when the petition was filed. He nevertheless wrote that “the respondents can be expected to keep the need to protect” Golan “under ongoing review, in accordance with the latest threat assessment in his case.”