Illegal Police Conduct at a Peaceful Protest

Illustrative. Photo: "Protest Documentation," Whatsapp

At a peaceful antiwar and pro-Two State Solution demonstration held on April 11, 2026 in the Haifa District, a police officer confiscated and broke a sign carried by a protester. The police officer then proceeded to handcuff the protester, told the protester that they were under arrest for “incitement,” and threatened them with physical violence. The officer then handcuffed three additional protesters and boasted about it to other officers, that by doing so they had met their quota for that evening. The following day, when the protester arrived at the police station and asked for the officer’s name in order to file a complaint, they were told that the person was not, in fact, a police officer but a volunteer. 

On April 19, 2026, we contacted senior police officials demanding an investigation into the officers’ conduct at the demonstration. Attorney Eden Gilad, ACRI’s Freedom of Protest Coordinator, noted the harm to freedom of expression and protest, human dignity, and personal safety. Confiscating signs, detaining and arresting protesters without cause, and handcuffing protesters in a public space is not only illegal, it also serves to create a chilling effect and signal to demonstrators and would-be demonstrators that exercising their rights may end in humiliation, fear, and harm to their safety and liberty. This is especially true for peaceful protests, when there are no disturbances to public order. She emphasized that the police are not permitted to interfere with the content of a protest simply because it expresses a political position they do not like, and that officers are not allowed to confiscate signs or to detain, arrest, or handcuff protesters without legal grounds.  

If it was, in fact, a Civil Guard volunteer who carried out the vandalism and harassment, this raises additional legal issues, as volunteers are not authorized to engage in policing demonstrations. ACRI is demanding that the incident be investigated and that procedures regarding freedom of expression and protest be clarified to Coastal District law enforcement officers. 

In its response on April 30, 2026, the police claimed that they respect freedom of expression and the right to demonstrate, but that in this case the demonstration took place at a central intersection, blocked traffic and endangered both the demonstrators and the public. The police chose in their response to blame the protester, and to claim that the fact that the protester was standing near the drivers who were stopped at the traffic light, and not at the main gathering point of the protest, could have caused an issue The police also claimed that the protester was detained and not arrested, was not handcuffed, and that there was no documentation of the police officer confiscating the sign or threatening the protester.

ACRI contacted the Attorney General on May 10, 2026, arguing that the response by the police reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the limits on freedom of expression and protest that goes against case law, the Attorney General's instructions, and the police's own directives. As Attorney Gilad noted, given the importance of freedom of expression and the right to protest, the courts have consistently ruled that the police may impose restrictions on these freedoms only when there is a near certainty of serious harm to public order or public peace, and only to the extent necessary to prevent such harm. She argued that during the demonstration in question the protester expressed their political opinion while crossing a crosswalk with a green light, without disturbing the peace or even disrupting traffic--a far cry from the standard with which freedom of expression or protest may be restricted. Moreover, had the protester feared a violent reaction from drivers, the role of the police is to prevent or stop such violence, not to harass the protester or restrict their rights. Attorney Gilad also emphasized the importance of holding a protest in a place where it can be heard and seen by passersby, and the importance of protecting freedom of protest and expression in times of war, as well as when it involves outrageous and controversial content.

ACRI’s appeal, April 19, 2026 (Heb) 

Response from the police, April 30, 2026 (Heb)

ACRI's appeal to the Attorney General, May 10, 2026 (Heb)