Suppression of Protests During Wartime

Photo: Arik Segal, "Documenting the Hi-Tech Protest," WhatsApp

Days after the start of the latest war with Iran, police violently and unlawfully dispersed an antiwar demonstration in Tel Aviv.  

Unfortunately, this is not a new or unexpected event. Below are summaries of some of the cases that ACRI has handled in which the police have attempted to suppress the right to freedom of protest and freedom of expression during wartime. Each case is an illustration of a tactic attempted by law enforcement to prevent or disrupt demonstrations. Unfortunately, law enforcement and government officials often take advantage of wartime to prevent citizens and residents from exercising their rights, and to create a chilling effect aimed at discouraging future protesters and protests. Throughout the past 2+ years of war, ACRI has been at the forefront of ensuring the right to freedom of expression and protest, and that the police understand the law and the limits of their authority. Freedom of expression and freedom to protest are fundamental rights that are essential to any democratic society, and war is never an excuse for undermining them. 

Dispersal of a Quiet Protest Vigil Against the War with Iran 

On March 4, 2026, ACRI submitted an appeal to the Attorney General and the police following the dispersal of a small, quiet demonstration in Tel Aviv against the war with Iran. Approximately 20 demonstrators participated in the protest; upon arriving, they discovered that around 40 police officers were waiting for them. The officers announced that this was an unlawful gathering and disturbing the peace. The demonstration was dispersed using force: officers beat the demonstrators, kicked them, knocked them to the ground, and seized their protest signs. One of the demonstrators was arrested and subjected to a full strip search, in violation of the law and for the sole purpose of humiliating him. There were a number of people gathered in the same location at the same time as the protest who were there, against the guidelines of the Home Front Command, for leisure activities, yet the police chose not to enforce the Home Front Command guidelines against those individuals. 

In the appeal, Attorneys Elza Bugnet and Nitsan Ilani clarified that neither Home Front Command guidelines nor restrictions on gatherings override freedom of protest and expression, particularly when such gatherings involve a small number of demonstrators and take place near a protective shelter. As they wrote: “This disturbing incident demonstrates that the police continue to conduct themselves as they have previously, by employing a sweeping and systematic practice of dispersing and suppressing lawful protests while using force and disproportionate measures such as arrests and strip searches...The police seriously harm freedom of protest and expression in Israel and create a chilling effect that deters others from engaging in protest activity during this period.” 

ACRI’s appeal, March 4, 2026 (Heb) 

Confiscation of Signs with Anti-War Messages

Since the outbreak of the Gaza War, the police have systematically harassed demonstrators carrying protest signs whose content criticizes the war and the killing of civilians in Gaza, such as “Stop the massacre,” “Stop the genocide in Gaza,” “Stop the war,” and similar messages. Police officers remove and tear signs from demonstrators’ hands, sometimes using force and while demanding the dispersal of the demonstration or protest vigil.

On February 8, 2024, ACRI submitted an appeal to the Police Commissioner and the Attorney General. Freedom of Expression and Protest Coordinator Sivan Tahel and Attorney Ann Suchio clarified that the number of cases and the consistency of police conduct point to a policy, or at the very least a systematic practice, ruling out the possibility that signs are confiscated solely due to the unique circumstances of each individual case. The police even stated explicitly that, in their view, the “prohibited” signs express support for the enemy and offend public sensibilities, and that they are therefore permitted to remove them and even use force to do so. 

The appeal argues that preventing demonstrators from displaying signs expressing their views voids the purpose of the protest and its effectiveness, especially for protest vigils, when displaying signs is often the main or sole means of protest. The police do not have the authority to intervene in the content of a protest and confiscate signs unless the display constitutes a criminal offense, and that offense to public sensibilities alone is not sufficient to justify restricting freedom of expression in these cases. 

ACRI's appeal, February 8, 2024 (Heb) 

We filed a Supreme Court petition on April 11, 2024 (Heb) 

Refusal to Allow a Demonstration That Had Already Been Approved 

On January 10, 2024, ACRI submitted an appeal to the Tel Aviv District Commander and the Police Legal Advisor regarding a march and rally organized by the group Standing Together titled “Only Peace Will Bring Security.” The organizers applied for a permit eight days before the scheduled date. The police conducted prolonged negotiations with them, compelled them to agree to an alternative route for the march, and had them sign a document laying out the conditions for the march and rally. About two hours after the documents were signed, three days before the event was scheduled to take place, the police informed the organizers that they had reversed their decision and that the march and rally were not approved. Despite promising that a they would send the organizers the reasons for the decision in writing, the organizers never received anything.  

In our appeal, Field Coordinator and Freedom of Protest Coordinator Sivan Tahel and Director of Public Inquiries, Attorney Reut Shaer, argued that the conduct of the police was a violation of the right to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression and protest in a manner that was disproportionate and contrary to the rules established in law and case law, and that it contravened the duty of the police to act fairly and reasonably. They argued that the foot-dragging by the police until the last moment and leaving the organizers without a decision they could challenge could hardly be seen as conduct carried out in good faith. 

The appeal further notes that refusal to grant permits for demonstrations due to controversial content has become part of a systematic pattern of police conduct during the war. Protest vigils, even very small ones, organized by individuals perceived as belonging to the political left or as opposing the war, have been rejected or subjected to restrictive conditions aimed at reducing the effectiveness of the protest and muting the voices expressed within it. This is contrary to the obligation by police to disregard the content of the protest and the political or ideological affiliation of its organizers and participants when determining whether to grant approval. 

ACRI's appeal, January 10, 2024 (Heb) 

Demanding a Permit When None Is Required 

On December 3, 2023, ACRI submitted an appeal to the Attorney General and the Police Commissioner following two cases in which the police demanded that organizers of small protest vigils—events that do not require a permit—come to the police station and obtain a demonstration permit. In one of the cases the demonstration was not approved, even though legally it did not require a permit or a license. In a recent discussion in the Constitution, Justice, and Law Committee, a senior police official admitted that during wartime the police “force” demonstrators to “coordinate” with them in advance for any planned demonstration. 

Our appeal noted that even if in certain cases the police are authorized to impose restrictions on demonstrations that do not require a permit, this does not create an obligation for organizers to engage in advance coordination or obtain prior approval, particularly when the planned demonstration is a small-scale or spontaneous protest vigil organized on short notice in response to unfolding events. We demanded that police stations be instructed not to condition demonstrations that do not require a permit on the submission of a license application, “approval,” or “coordination,” and to stop dispersing demonstrations solely because organizers did not submit such a request. 

ACRI's appeal, December 3, 2023 (Heb) 

Dispersal of Protest Vigils and Demonstrations 

On November 15, 2023, ACRI submitted an appeal to the Attorney General and the Police Commissioner following several incidents in which the police acted to disperse quiet, small-scale protest vigils that involved no provocation of any kind. The demonstrations, which were held following the arrest of members of the High Follow-Up Committee for Arab Citizens of Israel and teacher Meir Baruchin, protested political persecution and the silencing of voices. The dispersals were carried out with violence and accompanied by verbal abuse, humiliation, and arbitrary arrests. 

In the appeal, Field Coordinator and Freedom of Protest Coordinator Sivan Tahel and Attorney Ann Suchio reiterated the fundamental principles of freedom of expression and assembly: demonstrations that do not include speeches (as opposed to chants and signs) on political issues, and all the more so small protest vigils, do not require police approval, neither in advance nor while they are taking place. When the police consider preventing a protest from taking place, they are obligated to disregard the content of the demonstration or the ideological background of its organizers or participants. Additionally, even in times of war, prohibiting a demonstration due to concerns about disruption of public order is the exception, not the rule. 

The response we received from the Police Legal Advisory Department ignored the facts and documentation we had attached, and many of the illegal and unlawful actions we noted continued and even intensified. We therefore again submitted an appeal to the Attorney General and urged her to take direct responsibility for addressing the issue. 

ACRI's appeal to the Attorney General and the Police Commissioner, November 15, 2023 (Heb) 

Police response, November 26, 2023 (Heb) 

ACRI's appeal to the Attorney General, January 17, 2024 (Heb)