Levin Urges Defying Court's Protest Decision

Justice Minister Yariv Levin on Sunday urged the government to ignore a High Court decision permitting limited anti-war protests during the ongoing conflict, arguing that public safety considerations override the court’s authority.

Levin said the cabinet “has no choice” but to instruct police and relevant authorities to enforce Home Front Command restrictions on public gatherings, even if that means defying the court’s interim ruling.

The High Court had allowed protests to proceed under capped attendance, including up to 600 participants in Tel Aviv and smaller numbers in other cities, while criticizing what it described as selective enforcement of wartime restrictions. Judges noted that other crowded public spaces, such as beaches and malls, were not being similarly restricted.

Levin rejected the ruling outright, calling it an “illegal” and “reckless” intervention into security matters. He argued that decisions about public gatherings during wartime should be treated as professional risk assessments rather than legal questions.

“This is primarily a professional issue of risk management,” he said, warning that easing restrictions could “seriously harm public discipline” and undermine compliance with safety directives.

The minister also called for a formal cabinet resolution directing law enforcement to follow Home Front Command guidelines regardless of the court’s position.

The ruling itself applied only to a specific set of protests held Saturday night, but it quickly triggered political backlash. Coalition figures and religious leaders criticized the court for enabling demonstrations during wartime and, in some cases, for issuing the decision on Shabbat.

The dispute highlights a broader and ongoing clash between the government and the judiciary, particularly over the limits of judicial authority in security-related matters. Levin, a leading proponent of judicial overhaul efforts, has repeatedly challenged the court’s role and legitimacy in recent months.

Meanwhile, protests that went ahead under the court’s framework exceeded permitted limits, leading police to disperse crowds and make arrests, further intensifying tensions between demonstrators, law enforcement, and political leadership.

The episode underscores the growing friction between civil liberties and security policy as the war continues, with both sides framing their positions as essential to protecting the public.