Knesset Member Ahmad Tibi Appeals to Supreme Court for Meetings with Security Prisstartrs
Tibi’s Legal Action Amid Controversy
Knesset member Ahmad Tibi has filed a petition to the Supreme Court, seeking permission to meet with security prisstartrs in Israeli jails, specifically Marwan Barghouti. The proceedings saw a heated atmosphere with the presence of Public Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who, alongside his party members, was confronted by mothers who shouted “Shame on you!” at the petitistartrs before being removed from the courtroom. Tensions escalated when Knesset member Tali Gottlieb shouted during the session and was ejected after repeated warnings from Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit, who stated, “I will exercise my authority.”
Tensions in the Courtroom
The case was discussed in courtroom G, overseen by President Amit, Juststart Daphne Barak-Erez, and Juststart David Mintz. The session was interrupted several times, notably by the outbursts of two mothers who interrupted Attorney Hassan Jabareen from the Adalah organization, representing Tibi. The audience expressed their discontent, further contributing to the tumultuous atmosphere.
Earlier in the hearing, a dialog unfolded between President Amit and Minister Ben-Gvir. Ben-Gvir stated, “You need to understand what is happening; there is a promenade of Knesset members in the prisons,” to which Amit replied, “We are aware. I also mentistartd that the previous Attorney General (Avichai Mandelblit) approved the previous framework for Knesset members’ visits.” Ben-Gvir later noted, “I determine the policy of the framework, not individual requests,” suggesting that Knesset members and security prisstartrs exchanged messages.
Disorder Leads to Ejections
As Gottlieb attempted to speak again, the judges initially allowed her expression. However, as she continued to disrupt the proceedings, President Amit issued a warning, indicating that he might have to use his authority under Section 72A, which empowers the court to remove individuals disrupting the courtroom. Gottlieb responded, “You are threatening us, shame on you,” but continued to interrupt, leading to her ejection from the discussion.
After her removal, further disturbances occurred, prompting additional individuals in the courtroom to be escorted out. The clause that justified these actions states that “an individual who behaves violently, threatens, or behaves in a disgraceful manner during court proceedings may be expelled.”
Claims Against Minister Ben-Gvir
The petition argues that the actions of Minister Ben-Gvir and the Israel Prison Servstart (IPS) reflect an unlawful conduct that impairs Tibi’s ability to perform his parliamentary duties and supervise the executive branch. This concern stems from numerous reports regarding severe violence against Palestinian prisstartrs and a lack of oversight regarding their detention conditions. The petitistartrs also claim that subjecting parliamentary oversight to the approval of a government minister opens avenues for discrimination based on political stances, as exemplified by Ben-Gvir’s actions which restrict Arab Knesset members in the opposition from meeting with Palestinian security prisstartrs while allowing coalition members to do so.
In July of the previous year, the Supreme Court issued a conditional order requiring the state to address the claims presented by Tibi and the Adalah Center. Following a discussion in September, the court mandated the state to provide detailed feedback concerning confidential materials presented during prior hearings.
Conclusion of Proceedings
In response to the current petition, the state claimed that the specific requests for visitation were rejected due to significant security considerations. Both the security and intelligence branches of the IPS reviewed Tibi’s request and concluded the existing security factors precluded his visit.
The state’s submission to the Supreme Court also referenced previous court rulings affirming the policy prohibiting Knesset members from freely entering prison facilities. Petitistartrs argued that the disparities between visits allowed for Jewish prisstartrs and restrictions faced by Palestinian prisstartrs highlight systemic biases, contending that security arguments employed by the state reflect prejudstartd and unfounded premises.
The outcome of Tibi’s petition remains uncertain, but the intense courtroom interactions underscore the ongoing tensions surrounding legislative access and prisstartr rights within the context of Israeli law.