Please click here for a list of posts relating to cases in which Honenu provided legal counsel to victims of antisemitic attacks in Jerusalem.
Honenu Attorney Bleicher; Photo credit: Honenu
Wednesday, July 16, 2025, 9:05 Honenu Attorney Chayim Bleicher is representing a Jewish assault victim fighting to clear his name after being falsely accused of assault in a counter-complaint by his Arab assailant.
The attack occurred on June 28, 2022. An Arab security guard working at a Jerusalem Light Rail infrastructure work site on Bar Ilan Street in Jerusalem violently attacked a Jew. The victim had admonished the guard for disturbing other passers-by. The guard knocked the victim’s cell phone to the ground, and when he bent down to pick it up, he kneed him in the face and knocked him to the ground, causing him multiple bruises and an arm sprain. Police officers who were called to the scene took the personal details of the assailant and instructed the victim to file a complaint, which he did.
Subsequently, in November 2022, although the police had the personal details of the assailant, the victim was notified that the case had been closed because “no suspects had been found.” Attorney Bleicher appealed the case closing on behalf of the victim, and in February 2023, the police decided to reopen the case.
When the assailant was eventually located and finally interrogated, he filed a counter-complaint against the victim, falsely accusing him of attacking the assailant! The victim was summoned to the police station and interrogated under warning. A criminal record was opened against him.
Recently, in an outrageous final decision both the case against the assailant and that against the victim were closed for “lack of evidence.” The assailant has not been punished, and yet the victim has a criminal record.
Attorney Bleicher appealed the decision, arguing that a sense of injustice emanates from the situation: “It is intolerable for the case to be closed like this. Not only did the appellee not see justice served to the assailant, but he himself was harmed by the outcome of the case. This situation violates the fundamental right of citizens to be protected from criminality and violence. What citizen will dare to complain when police conduct leads to such an extremely absurd situation that harms him and causes him damage in additional to what the violent criminals had done?!”
Attorney Bleicher added: “The injustice cries out to the heavens. It is contrary to every ethical value and common sense. Closing the case against the complainant for lack of evidence leaves a criminal stain. Not only are the police discouraging victims of crime from lodging a complaint with the police but they are causing additional damage to the victim. Violence by Arabs against the Jewish public, with an emphasis on Jews with a traditional appearance, is a national scourge. Harming the complainant and not punishing the assailant encourages criminal acts of this sort, which straddle the dividing line between nationalist and security crimes.”
Currently, Attorney Bleicher has asked the court to amend the grounds for closing the case against the victim to “lack of guilt” in order to clear his name that was defamed due to the conduct of the authorities. Additionally, Attorney Bleicher asked to reopen the case against the assailant and put him on trial.
Attorney Bleicher described the absurdity of the situation: “Unfortunately, we are repeatedly witnesses to victims attacked by Arabs for no reason, and then when they file a complaint, a counter-complaint is filled against them, which leaves them with a criminal record. This practice has dissuaded many victims from complaining about violent crimes, which allows the attackers to continue unhindered.
“Sometimes, a situation reaches heights of absurdity such as the case at hand. The victim chased after the authorities for two years, imploring them to investigate the suspect. And in the end, he found himself with a criminal record. The complaint against him was filed two years after the incident, following the interrogation of the assailant. It was obvious to everyone that the counter-complaint was libel, because if the assailant had had a legitimate complaint against the victim, he would have filed it immediately after the incident.
“Unfortunately, the police prosecution and the other authorities often do not exercise good judgment, which causes injustice to victims time after time. We demand a change in the regulations for opening cases against victims and the use of genuine discretion when a victim would be left with a criminal record only because of a counter-complaint filed by the assailant. Unfortunately, when the police leave a victim with an unjustified criminal record, it exemplifies the saying, ‘Have you murdered, and also inherited?’” concluded Attorney Bleicher.