The MK responded to the court's demand to provide explanations for its support for harming soldiers • "I am working to end the occupation and achieve a just peace" • For its disqualification from the Knesset: "The things I said are irrelevant to the disqualification reasons" • Mendelblit clarified: Israel"

• MK Yizbak // Photo Archive: Oren Ben Hakun

MK Yizbak: In a statement sent today to the Attorney General, MK Hiba Yazbak from the joint list of the Attorney General's demand, Avihai Mandelblit to explain what she said implied that she supports the attack on IDF soldiers.

In an affidavit sent by MK Yizbak's lawyers, it is argued, among other things, that "international law itself allows peoples under occupation to act for their release. What is not legitimate is the continued occupation. "

Regarding the allegation that the Knesset Basic Law is concerned with "supporting an armed struggle of an enemy state or a terrorist organization against the State of Israel," it is clear that "I did not say that I support or call for harm to soldiers or anyone." ".

Recall, Attorney General Avihai Mandelblit yesterday asked MK Yazbak to explain her remarks.

Attorney General of the State Attorney's Office, Inar Helman, addressed a letter to Yizbak's attorneys and informed them that the Attorney General very strongly considers statements "from which explicitly or implicitly indicate support for an armed struggle by an enemy state or a terrorist organization against the State of Israel, including Injury to IDF Soldiers. "

Avichai Mandelblit Court // Photo Archive: Oren Ben Hakun

Helman added that the USSR wants to receive a clear reference, backed by an affidavit on behalf of the MK, in particular a statement from a television interview on Channel 13, in which she was asked whether harming the soldiers or the chief of staff is a reasonable objection to her, and replied that "international law itself allows To the peoples who are under occupation to act for their release. "In response, she was asked whether she perceived the soldiers as a legitimate act and to which MK Yashbak replied:" What is not legitimate is the continued occupation. "

The Supreme Court demands clarification on this issue so that it can formulate its position on the disqualification applications filed against it.