In June, demonstrators in Efrat and Emanuel protested against the decision to allow the entrance of Arab workers to their communities.
Honenu Attorney Eladi Weisel; Photo credit: Honenu
Tuesday, December 3, 2024, 13:54 Honenu Attorney Eladi Weisel appealed to the Police Investigation Unit (PIU) in a demand to reopen the investigative case against a police officer who threatened an Emanuel resident who was taking part in a protest against the entrance of Arab workers into the city in June. The resident was detained by the police and taken to the Ariel Police Station. When they arrived at the station, police officers hand and leg-cuffed the detainee and left him in restraints for many hours.
During his stay at the police station, two plainclothes officers put him in a side room. One of the officers violently and crudely threatened him and demanded that he divulge information about other protesters. The resident refused, and after a short time he was released to his home. Honenu Attorney Eladi Weisel wrote a letter of complaint to the PIU demanding that the threatening officer be investigated. However, the case was closed one month later without any investigative action having been taken.
In his letter, Attorney Weisel described the incident: “On June 30, 2024, the complainant took part in a protest held at the entrance to the city of Emanuel against the decision to allow Palestinian workers into the city. At approximately 9:50, when the complainant and several other protesters were sitting in the street near the workers’ entry gate, a number of police officers approached him, lifted him, and took him to a police car. From there, he was transported to the Ariel Police Station. At approximately 10:10, the complainant was brought into the station, and five minutes later, the officers decided to doubly restrain him by handcuffing him and shackling his legs. Only as he was being restrained, and that was only after the complainant asked if the decision to restrain him meant that he was detained, did the officers take the trouble to inform him that he was detained under the pretext that he had resisted detention, and that he was being restrained because he had the status of a detainee. The claim that he resisted detention is contradicted by a video documenting the detention.
“The height of the abuse occurred when the complainee and another man – both in plainclothes, without any article of clothing indicating police status – approached the complainant and ordered him to come with them, after which they took him to a side room. The complainant, who in the past had participated in an an interview with the GSS, and remembered that participation in such an in interview is voluntary, was concerned that he was again going to be interviewed by the GSS, asked the plainclothes men to identify themselves so that he would know if they were police officers or GSS agents. The complainee then became incensed, banged on the table, and shouted at the complainant a long series of threats, including: ‘I will make you disappear,’ ‘You will regret the day that you met me,’ ‘I will make you vomit blood,’ ‘I will burn your house down,’ ‘I will make your wife and children cry,’ and various other threats.”
Attorney Weisel continued: “When the complainant replied that he could not supply any information, the complainee resumed his threats and concluded with ‘It’s a shame about your wife and children.’ He turned the computer screen slightly toward the complainant and said, ‘I see that you have a wife and three small children. It would be a shame to get them used to such a situation at their age.’ Afterward, the complainee attempted to force the complainant to assure him that he would stop protesting and sign on a 15-day restraining order. When the complainant refused, the complainee ended the conversation. A short time later, the complainant was released to his home.”
Attorney Weisel issued a statement about the case: “The PIU, which is responsible for ‘gate-keeping’ and was founded to put an end to cover-ups in investigations of police officers, have again abused their office. They closed a serious case without bothering to conduct even the most elementary investigation. This is not how an investigation by an authority seeking the truth should be conducted. One would expect that after Judge Rozen (retired) leveled sharp criticism at the PIU for offhandedly closing cases of officers accused of abusing citizens, the PIU would act to rectify their ways and stop their unacceptable practices. Unfortunately, they have not, and the routine of systemic cover-ups continues at full force.”