news
News in Israel
Criminal news and law
The victim of the lynching in Tamra after the release of the attackers: "Do it because I am a Jew, it must not be taken lightly"
Shir Alkalay attacked the Supreme Court's decision to release under house arrest two of the eight defendants in his assault during Operation The Wall Guard.
He said his life had gone wrong since the incident in which "they were close to killing me".
The judge explained: "Detention is not a substitute for punishment"
Tags
lynch'
Tamra
The guardian of the walls
Eli Ashkenazi and Yael Friedson
Thursday, 02 September 2021, 09:10 Updated: 09:12
Share on Facebook
Share on WhatsApp
Share on general
Share on general
Share on Twitter
Share on Email
0 comments
Shir Alkalay, the victim of the lynching committed in Tamra during Operation Wall Guard, sharply criticized the Supreme Court's decision to release from custody two defendants involved in his assault. "It is not a personal matter of mine, but of the state. What message the state conveys and how it enforces order and law," he said.
"They must not take lightly what they did to me. It was not far from being killed," he continued. "It could have been worse. I was attacked because I am Jewish, but Arab citizens are also affected by violence within Arab society. I did not return to the routine of my life as it was before the incident. My life went wrong," Alkalay stressed.
The Supreme Court yesterday released under house arrest with electronic handcuffs Baha Abu al-Hija and Muhammad Abu Rumi. The indictment was filed against six young men, who are accused of a terrorist act of aggravated intentional sabotage and other offenses. "The acts attributed to the respondents are indeed extremely serious; however, the District Court saw fit to refer them for review,And I do not believe that there was a defect in this decision, "wrote Judge Anat Baron.
More on Walla!
"All out of a nationalist-ideological motive": Six Tamra residents accused of lynching a Jew
To the full article
More on Walla!
"All out of a nationalist-ideological motive": Six Tamra residents accused of lynching a Jew
Some of the suspects were released to their home.
The Tamra lynching attempt (Photo: Walla !, no)
The incident occurred on May 12, during riots that broke out across the country during Operation Wall Guard. Near midnight, he found himself in the Alkalai area, 49 years old and married and a father of four. He made his way from his job as a private gardener to his home in nearby Mitzpe Aviv, with a large "trained Nachman" sticker on his vehicle. Due to the riots, the roads to the isolated settlement where he lives were blocked, and he drove on a bypass road through Tamra.
According to the indictment, Abu al-Hija kicked the passenger door of the vehicle and hit Al-Qalai several times with a wooden stick in his upper body; And Abu Rumi, put his upper body into the vehicle through the passenger door that was open, and attacked Alkalay with contradictions, punches and a kick. The indictment further stated that the actions described were motivated by a nationalist-ideological motive.
The Haifa District Court ordered a review by the probation service, and then ordered that they be placed under house arrest under electronic restraint, under the supervision of two inspectors, the deposit of financial guarantees and a delay in leaving the country.
"Detention is not a substitute for punishment"
The state appealed the decision to release him under house arrest, emphasizing that the defendants' actions "indicate extremely high danger, severe cruelty and lack of fear of the law."
The state further claimed that the actions of all the defendants in the case caused a commotion and indicated special severity, even in relation to other "lynching" incidents that occurred at that time in other places in the country as well.
The state stressed that Baha's actions were particularly serious, as his phone captured images of himself photographing himself at the lynching scene, including a picture in which his hand appears when she is covered in blood.
"The acts attributed to the respondents are extremely serious," Judge Baron emphasized, "and yet it must be remembered that detention is not a substitute for punishment and is not an advance at the expense of punishment. At this stage the respondents have the presumption of innocence.
Share on Facebook
Share on WhatsApp
Share on general
Share on general
Share on Twitter
Share on Email
0 comments
