This week, the Knesset plenary decided to grant Knesset member Haim Katz immunity from prosecution for a breach of trust. The preliminary indictment prepared by the Attorney General tried for the first time to suggest that an MK acting to promote legislation that he is one of the beneficiaries of could be charged with a criminal offense of breach of trust and demand "due disclosure".

The attempt to "judge politics" should be threatened and the public elected to be threatened, who will now have to think about how things said or not said in the Knesset will stand the test of justice.

The Knesset did grant "deliberative immunity", which means that the indictment against Katz will not be filed until the current Knesset is left, and it may well be that the next Knesset will also be required on the issue. But the reason for granting immunity is equally important: the Knesset decided that Katz was transferred as part of his or her job as a Knesset member.

In fact, the Knesset expressed its clear position that the indictment should not have been filed at all. The law explicitly states that a Knesset member shall not be held criminally responsible for "voting, oral or written opinion, or an act done in the performance of the Knesset or for the performance of the Knesset member."

The Knesset's lack of confidence in the Attorney General's discretion joins a long line of criticism from elected officials on biased opinions and precedents related to political, political, and legal relations that Mandelblit and the Legal Advisory Board issued in recent months.

Although some of the Blue and White MKs supported the granting of immunity to the Katz, MK Benny Gantz was quick to declare that he regards the granting of the immunity to Katz as "an opening for corruption and the creation of a clique that could turn the House of Representatives into a shelter for criminals." By the MKs, "and to establish a committee of professionals and public figures, including former Knesset members, to make a relevant and professional decision."

But the truth is that the MKs made a real and professional decision in Katz's case, and if Netanyahu's clear political dividend would not have been guaranteed, the court system's attempt to criminalize political activity would jeopardize Israeli democracy.

The usual rules of conflict of interest should not be applied to MKs in their actions as legislators. The absurd will call for heaven. An activist from the south of Tel Aviv elected to the Knesset will not be allowed to deal with the illegal immigration issue; Haredim will not be allowed to attend meetings and workers' representatives will not be allowed to promote legislation in favor of the employee. Imagine a member of the Ethiopian community who will not be able to act for the community, which includes his immediate family.

The requirement to apply conflicts of interest in Mendelblit's strict interpretation would prevent MKs from acting for their despatches and representing the public. Instead, they would have to act in favor of what is defined in the Department of Justice or the High Court as the essential public interest, while renouncing minor and marginal details: the rule of the people , Or in Hebrew: Democracy.

Immunity, in this context, is indeed a cornerstone of democracy, and it must not be passed on to a professional body - it only protects us from the takeover of jurists by the Knesset.

Attorney Simcha Rutman is the legal counsel for the governorship movement