The High Court of Justice is addressing the security arrangements for Maj. Gen. (res.) Yair Golan, Chairman of The Democrats party. In a decision handed down on Tuesday, the High Court ordered the head of the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet), the Ministerial Committee for Shin Bet Affairs, and the government to review the necessity of providing security for Golan. The assessment must be based on the latest threat evaluation, with the relevant authorities required to update the court on their conclusions within two days.
The decision follows an urgent petition filed by Golan and his party, seeking immediate protection from the Shin Bet due to escalating threats ahead of the elections. The petition claims that the head of the Threatened Persons Section at the Israel Police recently raised Golan’s risk level to 4 out of 6—the same level assigned to 'Yesh Atid' chairman Gadi Eisenkot, who was granted security protection. According to the petitioners, authorities have failed to respond to three written inquiries, including a direct appeal to the head of the Shin Bet.
The factual record presented to the court includes a series of explicit threats of physical violence against Golan and his family. Notably, it mentions an incident where a brick was thrown at the Keshet 12 news studios, accompanied by a letter containing death threats specifically targeting Golan. Additionally, instances of severe incitement on social media were cited, including calls for a lynch and threatening language directed at his family members. Party CEO Omer Lubaton Granot warned in his filing that the situation requires urgent intervention to prevent a serious escalation.
It should be noted that the Public Advisory Committee on Personal Security has previously discussed security issues for public figures, but no final decision has been reached regarding Golan. Golan’s attorneys emphasized in their petition that the risk is tangible and that a lack of action could lead to irreversible harm. The State Attorney's Office and security agencies are now required to respond to the court, detailing their professional considerations based on current intelligence assessments under the oversight of the High Court.