Jewish activists Itamar Ben-Gvir and Baruch Marzel arrived Thursday morning at the Supreme Court for a hearing on a petition filed by those seeking to protest against the Attorney General in Petach Tikvah, demanding that they be allowed to demonstrate in Goren Square.
The petitioners have asked the court to disallow Marzel and Ben-Gvir from voicing their position on the issue during the hearing, but the judges rejected the request and allowed the activists to be heard.
During a break in the hearing, after the petitioners and activists adjourned to the area outside of the courtrooms, a confrontation developed between Marzel and Ben-Gvir and the leftists who petitioned the Court.
Ben-Gvir slammed the attempts to prevent him from presenting his position to the Supreme Court justices: "Freedom of expression is not only for the extreme left," Ben-Gvir told the activists who clashed with him.
The hearing dealt with a petition by organizers of a weekly demonstration every Saturday at Goren Square in Petach Tikvah, a month after an agreement regarding the venue. During the hearing the judges proposed a compromise to the police and the demonstration organizers.
According to the outline proposed to the sides, the demonstration in Goren Square, located in the Attorney General's neighborhood, will be limited to 500 people, while the rest of the demonstrators will be diverted to the park opposite the Grand Mall in Petah Tikva.
A police representative in the hearing said that as far as the temporary compromise is concerned, the police are prepared to agree, but for this purpose they demand the cooperation of the protest leaders.
Attorney Eliad Shraga, a member of the Movement for Quality Government, rejected the proposal presented by the president of the Supreme Court and demanded that the number of demonstrators not be limited.
"We will not agree to limit the number of people, it is impossible; we can promise that we will set up ushers, something that has already been done in the past," Shraga said.
At the end of the hearing, Justice Hayut noted that in view of the lack of a compromise agreement, an interim decision will be given regarding the situation until a decision is reached on the petition, and a ruling will be given on the merits.