The High Court of Justice heard a petition by “Let the Animals Live” against the police’s use of horses as a means of dispersing demonstrations
- The organization: “The suffering caused to the horses is extreme and disproportionate given the other tools available to the police”
- The police: When not in use, the horses are kept in favorable conditions
- Chief Justice Amit to the police: “Have you ever considered whether the use of horses is unnecessary?”
The High Court of Justice held a hearing today (16.3) on a petition filed by the “Let the Animals Live” association against the police’s use of horses as a means of dispersing demonstrations. The hearing was held before Supreme Court President Isaac Amit, Deputy President Noam Sohlberg, and Justice Daphne Barak-Erez. The petition argues that the police are violating the Animal Welfare Law and abusing the horses—from the training process to their routine use, including their deployment into the heart of turbulent demonstrations. Expert opinions from international specialists submitted by the association indicate that the police operate the horses in a manner that endangers both the horses and the demonstrators. In its response, the police refused to comply with the petition and argued that the use of horses is necessary for maintaining public order.
“Let the Animals Live” filed the petition in November 2024, demanding that the police cease using horses. This followed a period beginning a year and a half earlier, when, alongside the expansion of protests against the judicial reform, the police increased the presence of horses at demonstrations. These mass protests, held in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and other locations—and later demonstrations calling for the return of hostages and additional protests—led to continuous and regular weekly use of horses, even in situations where there was no confrontation between demonstrators and police.
The petition was supported by expert opinions from two international specialists: veterinarian Prof. Paul McGreevy of Australia, considered one of the world’s leading experts in equine welfare and behavior, and Dean Stansall from the organization Animal Aid in England. Both experts warned that the police’s use of horses significantly harms their welfare and endangers them as well as people nearby. The petition included extensive documentation and data indicating high turnover rates among police horses due to health and behavioral issues. The petition was submitted by attorney Amnon Keren from the Environmental Justice and Animal Protection Clinic at Tel Aviv University. The hearing was consolidated with an additional petition filed by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, which addressed the harm caused to demonstrators by the use of horses.
In its response, the police argued that the use of horses in demonstrations is necessary and that it constitutes a less harmful means compared to other crowd-dispersal methods. Following the petition, the police informed the High Court that it would reduce the consecutive working hours of horses by half—to 3 hours instead of the 6 hours previously set in its procedures. However, no additional limitations were included in the police’s response, such as limits on total daily working hours (which may reach 10 hours or more), restrictions regarding harsh weather conditions, the use of horses alongside other crowd-control measures, or responses to other claims raised in the petition. During today’s hearing, “Let the Animals Live” argued that the suffering inflicted on the horses is extreme and disproportionate in light of the other tools available to the police. It was further argued that, in practice, the use of horses escalates protest situations—harming both the horses and the demonstrators—rather than bringing them to an end.
The justices suggested that while a complete ban on the use of horses for crowd dispersal may not be appropriate, many provisions in the police procedures are vague and fail to address the concerns raised in the petition. This includes, for example, provisions regarding rest periods for the horses and prohibitions on the simultaneous use of additional crowd-dispersal measures such as stun grenades and water cannons. The police maintained that when not in use, the horses are kept in favorable conditions and that their use complies with the law and operational needs. At the same time, the Court asked the police: “Have you ever considered whether the use of horses is unnecessary?”
The police use approximately 70 horses of the Friesian breed. These horses were apparently selected for their intimidating appearance; however, it appears that their characteristics are not suited to police work, as they are not adapted to riding in crowded environments or exposure to intense and threatening stimuli (such as noise, smoke, physical contact, and various objects). As a result, their very use—and the intentional contact between horses and demonstrators—intensifies harm to the horses and increases the risk to people nearby.
Horses are highly sensitive animals that tend to flee in situations of fear. The training they undergo in the police is intended to break their spirit and suppress their natural instinct to escape from distress and danger, but it does not eliminate the distress itself. The training process cannot replicate the chaotic field conditions in which they operate, and mounted officers use significant force in working with the horses, including the use of painful and outdated equipment, which exacerbates the suffering caused to them. These horses are also prone to panic from other crowd-dispersal tools used by the police, such as water cannons and stun grenades.
In addition, the police work the horses for long consecutive hours without access to food or water (except after several hours), even under harsh weather conditions. It was further argued that the police do not monitor critical basic indicators of horse welfare, such as heart rate and cortisol levels. The petition was submitted by attorney Amnon Keren from the Environmental Justice and Animal Protection Clinic at Tel Aviv University.
Yael Arkin, CEO of Let the Animals Live:
“Horses are not ‘tools’ for dispersing demonstrations. These are sensitive animals placed in a noisy, violent, and frightening environment that they have no way of coping with. When the police have a variety of other means to maintain public order, there is no justification for continuing to endanger them. We hope the Court will make the right decision and deliver justice for the horses.”
Attorney Amnon Keren, from the Environmental Justice and Animal Protection Clinic at Tel Aviv University:
“In the face of the detailed scientific expert opinions we presented, the police did not provide any data or evidence to support its claims that it is doing everything possible to prevent the suffering caused to the horses. During the hearing, it was clear that the justices are troubled by the way the police use horses, and the police’s responses did not adequately address these concerns. We await the Court’s decision, hoping it will bring meaningful change for the horses.”
