War is Not an Excuse for the Police to Block Freedom of Protest

Illustrative. Pro-democracy protest. Photo: Yossi Zamir, Shatil-stok

ACRI filed a petition with the Supreme Court on March 31, 2026, demanding that the police and the Home Front Command be ordered to allow demonstrations during the war with Iran, particularly if the demonstrations take place near protected spaces. The petition argues that since the outbreak of the fighting with Iran, the police have been systematically attempting to prevent anti-war demonstrations and forcefully dispersing protesters, under the pretext that Home Front Command guidelines prohibit gatherings. This has occurred even when there were only a small number of individuals or a few dozen people were participating, and even when the demonstration was held next to large shelters, such as the one located in Habima Square in Tel Aviv. 

Neither the Home Front Command’s guidelines nor the restrictions imposed on gatherings during wartime negate the freedom to protest. Rulings issued on various previous petitions, including petitions filed by ACRI during the Iron Swords War, continually reaffirmed that freedom of expression continues to exist during wartime and, in fact, it becomes particularly important during periods of emergency, and the police have a duty to facilitate the exercise of this right, both during emergencies and routine times. The systematic police harassment of demonstrators who criticize the government and call for an end to the war raises serious concerns that it is not the demonstrations themselves that have prompted this response from the police, but the messages at their core. 

A hearing on the petition was held on April 3, 2026, and the justices instructed the police and the Home Front Command to submit a framework under which demonstrations could be held. The submission by the Home Front Command stated that demonstrations are not permitted other than up to 150 people divided into two groups in Habima Square in Tel Aviv. The Attorney General then stated that the Home Front Command’s guidelines are not conducive to protecting of freedom of expression, and that legal officials had not examined the decision at all. The Court requested, ex parte, to review the classified material upon which the Home Front Command based its decision; at the same time, ACRI submitted information to the Court regarding the protected spaces near the planned demonstration sites, as well as information about the numerous gatherings that had taken place throughout the day that the police made no effort to disperse. The Court ruled in an interim order that the Home Front Command’s decision cannot stand, and instructed the police to establish, by the end of the day, policies for the demonstrations planned for Saturday night that would take into account the right to freedom of expression and protest. The Court also instructed the police and the Home Front Command to present a broader framework of policies for demonstrations during wartime, and scheduled an additional hearing for April 9, 2026. 

The police allowed the court’s deadline to pass without submitting anything, and even informed the media that their interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision was that they were allowed to disperse demonstrations. The Court issued a decision instructing the police to allow demonstrations to take place, with a limit of no fewer than 150 people at locations in Jerusalem, Haifa, and Kfar Saba, and no fewer than 600 people in Habima Square in Tel Aviv i.e demonstrations of at least 150/600 people would be allowed.

Subsequently, at the Tel Aviv demonstration police announced to protesters that the demonstration was illegal because it exceeded 600 people — a deliberate misreading of the Supreme Court’s ruling, which did not limit the number of participants to 600 but actually stated that police were required to permit demonstrations of at least 600 participants. The police, some of whom were mounted, violently dispersed the protest and performed arrests. Protesters were injured, and a volunteer police physician interfered with the treatment of a demonstrator who suffered a cardiac event during the protest. When a missile alert was issued due to a launch from Yemen—ostensibly the reason for police to curtain protests during wartime—those present in the square descended to the public shelter located in the nearby parking garage without difficulty. 

The following day, on April 5, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a conditional order directing the State to explain "why a civil defense policy regarding holding demonstrations, which properly balances security needs with the exercise of the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, shall not be established." After a number of attempts by the State to cancel the hearing or extend the deadline for submitting a response, the Court ruled that the hearing would proceed as scheduled. 

The hearing was held on April 10, 2026, and was consolidated with a hearing on an additional petition concerning civil defense policy as it relates to holy sites. Following the hearing, a ruling was issued permitting demonstrations in Haifa with no fewer than 150 participants (meaning that police must allow demonstrations of more than 150 participants), and at Habima Square "with a number no less than the number approved by the Home Front Command for gatherings in that area at the time the demonstration takes place [1,000 at the time the ruling was issued] (taking into account that a protected space capable of sheltering a significant number of people is located on the premises)." The Court emphasized that exceeding these numbers does not necessarily mean the demonstration must be dispersed. The Court then ordered the State to submit a response affidavit by April 26, 2026. 

HCJ 78622-03-26 Greenberg v. Commissioner of the Israel Police 

Attorneys: Oded Feller, Tal Hassin 

For a full list of legal documents in Hebrew about this case, see here