Dissent is Always Allowed. Even During Wartime

Subscribe to ACRI's newsletter

Donate to ACRI

Illustrative. Police detain a protester at a demonstration to release the hostages. Photo: Yossi Zamir, Shatil-stok

Dear friend,

Days after the start of the most recent war with Iran, a small group gathered in Tel Aviv’s HaBima Square to peacefully express their opposition to the war. Their position was not yet a particularly popular one, and they may have expected some antagonism from the police. What they experienced was a violent dispersal, including beatings. One protester was detained and illegally strip searched.  

This is the result of a politicized police force under the increasing control of the racist and extremist Itamar Ben Gvir. The police will strip search you, beat you, and degrade you to send a message: no dissent allowed.

Our experience has taught us that war is used as an excuse by authorities to erode basic rights, precisely when it is most important that people be able to exercise their rights. But freedom of assembly and protest are fundamental rights that are essential for a democratic society, whether things are calm or a state of emergency has been declared. 

Command issued guidelines limiting the number of people who could gather based on their proximity to a shelter. In practice, enforcement was nearly nonexistent. Shopping malls stayed full, beaches were crowded, and no one was asked to disperse. The one exception was demonstrations, specifically those against the war and against the government. These demonstrations were broken up aggressively and often violently, even when they took place in areas with quick and direct access to major public shelters. Just before Passover, and following the violent dispersal of protests, ACRI petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing that demonstrations must be granted an exception, from the Home Front Command's restrictions, given the constitutional weight of the right to protest.  The Court scheduled the hearing during Passover, an unusual move, and the Court’s decision was ultimately published on Shabbat. This is something that happens extremely rarely, indicating the seriousness that the Court takes the right to freedom of protest. 

In the hearing, Justice Isaac Amit, President of the Supreme Court, cut to the heart of it: 

"Let us understand what it means to not hold demonstrations in Israel. I have a feeling that in recent years, and in the years to come, the home front has become the battlefield. This is life, and this is what will happen. So if we ban demonstrations, that means there will be no more protests during wartime." 

The Court's interim decision, issued that Shabbat, authorized demonstrations in four cities, with the largest in Tel Aviv's Habima Square, a major public plaza in the center of the city that sits above one of the biggest public shelters in Israel, permitted at no fewer than 600 people. The decision came late, after considerable foot-dragging from the Home Front Command, and by the time it was published the demonstrations had already begun. Roughly a thousand people were gathered in Habima Square. The police, who had always insisted that their actions were about protecting protesters during wartime, chose to misread the ruling as authorizing a demonstration of up to 600, and began forcefully breaking up the crowd. After 17 protesters had been loaded onto a police bus, a missile alert sounded. Rather than taking them to a shelter, officers ignored the pleas of those who had been arrested to be allowed to go to a shelter and began driving. When the sirens followed, the protesters were finally taken into the lobby of a nearby building, which had a glass facade and no protected space. Whatever the police were doing, it was not about protection. 

A second hearing was held by the following Friday, in preparation for the next round of weekend demonstrations. The justices focused on the police misreading of the earlier decision, and issued a firmer and clearer ruling. The numbers mattered less than the principle: the right to protest does not disappear in wartime, and the authorities, the police and the Home Front Command, are obligated to develop policies that allow it. 

Whether we agree with the messages of a particular protest or not, we care deeply that they are able to happen. Whether we are in the midst of a war, a ceasefire, or peacetime, we will continue to fight for this principle, and to ensure that the sights and sounds at demonstrations are those of peoples’ voices being heard, not suppressed. Donate Now.

ACRI in the Media

As we wait for ACRI's petition against the Death Penalty Law to make its way through the Supreme Court, we wanted to send you a selection of the articles that have been written about the Death Penalty Law and about ACRI’s work. News organizations from every continent (other than Antarctica—as far as we are aware) have covered this issue, testifying to its importance and indicating the extent to which the world has reacted to the passage of this law with revulsion.

• NPR, “Israel passes law that would sentence Palestinians who kill Israelis to death.” An interview with Noa Sattath, ACRI’s Executive Director

• CNN, “Israel’s Parliament Votes to Expand Death Penalty for Palestinians.” An interview with Noa Sattath, ACRI’s Executive Director

• BBC, “Palestinians Convicted of Lethal Attacks Face Death Penalty Under New Israeli Law” 

• Reuters, “Israel Passes Death Penalty Law for Palestinians Convicted of Lethal Attacks” 

• AP News, “Israeli Civil Rights Group Sets Out its Appeal Against ‘Barbaric’ Death Penalty Law,” featuring ACRI lawyer Elza Bugnet  

• United News of India, “Israel Parliament Okays Death Penalty for Palestinians Convicted of Deadly Attacks" 

• Nigeria Info, “Global Outrage as Israel Passes Death Penalty Law Targeting Palestinians”