The High Court of Justice requested this week that the Shin Bet (ISA) and the government review the necessity of providing security for 'The Democrats' party chairman, Yair Golan, and submit their reasoned position to the court within 48 hours. This expedited decision was issued hours after the party filed a formal petition following previous, unfulfilled requests to the authorities.
In the petition, the party asserts that the security reality surrounding Yair Golan demands immediate intervention. The petitioners claim that the Israel Police defines the threat level against Golan as high, yet he remains without a protection detail. The party attached documents detailing alleged specific, explicit death threats directed at Golan and his family on social media and in public spaces. Some threats documented in the petition include calls for severe physical violence, hanging, and the use of firearms.
Prior to the petition, the party contacted Shin Bet head David Zini with an ultimatum for security; its rejection led to this legal action. The broader legal context stems from a previous decision by the Ministerial Committee on Shin Bet Affairs, led by Justice Minister Yariv Levin, which authorized the Shin Bet to determine security requirements for party leaders until the swearing-in of the 26th Knesset. Under this framework, responsibility for security packages for public figures, including Yair Golan, Gadi Eisenkot, and Ofer Winter, was assigned to the Shin Bet head.
Representatives for 'The Democrats' emphasized in their petition that the police rank Golan's risk level as 4 out of 6, a level they argue warrants active intervention by security services. The High Court's current decision compels the state to present its professional and legal stance regarding threat assessments and the criteria for providing security to public officials. The matter highlights the tension between the state's duty to protect public figures and the professional discretion exercised by security agencies. The parties are now awaiting the state's response, which will determine whether security measures for the party chairman will be increased. It should be emphasized that these are the claims of the petitioning party, and the court's decision is an interim order for a response, not a final ruling on the merits.