Offenses in cyberspace are also sufficient these days to extend detention until the end of the proceedings. Despite warnings from his family that he would be arrested, beginning on October 7, a 43-year-old resident of the north published posts praising the atrocities committed by Hamas members. After an indictment was filed against him for incitement to terrorism, he asked to be released - but his detention was extended until the end of the proceedings.
An indictment was filed against the defendant for offenses of incitement to terrorism and expression of identification with a terrorist organization. This was after he posted seven posts on his Facebook account over several days, starting with the outbreak of Hamel Hama. The posts praised the atrocities and killings committed by Hamas terrorists, and even encouraged more in the future.
The publications included blatant, violent and harsh content, one of which even involved degrading the victims. One of the publications includes a drum of a 20-minute speech by Abu Obeida, spokesman for Hamas' military-terrorist wing, and in some of the publications there is an explicit call to "be with us step by step in revenge," and a call to "rise up on all fronts and a mountain of debts, enter the campaign and set fire to the ground under the enemy's feet."
Kibbutz Nahal Oz after the attack on Hamas terrorists on October 7, photo: Jonathan Zindel/Flash90
The Magistrate's Court rejected the defense attorneys' request to settle for an alternative to detention, arguing, inter alia, that the defendant posed no danger and that some of the publications did not constitute an offense.
The court's decision noted that there is no room for an alternative to detention, since those who support the atrocities and murders committed and encourage the ideology of the murderers teach themselves that they are no different from them, and that the danger resulting from them cannot be discussed except behind bars, until the end of the proceedings.
The defense attorneys did not give up and appealed the decision to the District Court, arguing on the issue of dangerousness that sharing the publications did not establish a determination of dangerousness at the threshold justifying remand until the end of the proceedings, since the appellant did not write the contents or create them.
It was further argued that the delay of the respondent from the date of publication until the arrest, for a considerable number of days, is an indication that the danger is not a high bar. Another argument was that the alleged offenses were committed in cyberspace, so it is unclear how restricting the defendant's freedom of movement through arrest will prevent his danger.
On the other hand, the state argued that the defendant's correspondence that was discovered indicates that he speaks out against Israel and against Jews during the war, and that it can even be seen that his relatives warned him about publications that could lead to his arrest, and despite this, he carried them out. It was also argued that the acts attributed to him indicate a high level of dangerousness in general, and at this time in particular.
The judges, who rejected the request for release, ruled that at this time there is no reason to be satisfied with the alternative of detention proposed by the defendant, supervised by his family. This is in view of the severity of the acts and the fact that the defendant did not cease publications even though he received warnings from some family members, and also because of the great danger of the offenses these days, when any spark could indeed ignite the ground and cause others to act.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us