Tuesday, April 16, 2024, 8:35 Two years ago, a border police officer was filmed pulling the beard and side curls of a Yehuda and Shomron resident who was protesting the lack of security in Israel, Honenu filed a complaint with the Police Investigation Unit (PIU) over the brutality on behalf of the resident. However, the case was closed two months ago without an indictment, despite clear documentation of the brutality, because “insufficient evidence was found to put the officer on trial.” Recently, Honenu Attorney Eladi Weisel appealed the PIU’s decision to close the case.
Border policeman attacks protester; Video credit: Free use
In the appeal, Attorney Weisel described the brutal treatment of the Yehuda and Shomron resident: “On March 29, 2022, a protest was held near the main Yitzhar junction. The protesters, among them the complainant, attempted to reach the traffic circle at the junction so that they could hold the protest at a more central and conspicuous location. On their way to the circle, the protesters were stopped by border police officers who prevented them from reaching the junction. The complainant tried to cross the street and pass the officers, but was blocked by them. At this point, an argument began between the complainant and the officers who demanded that he leave the site, and tried to shove him away. Suddenly, the complainee [an officer] grasped the complainant’s beard and violently pulled it. Although the complainant screamed in pain, the complainee continued to pull on his beard and also his side curls as he dragged the complainant to the sidewalk.”
Attorney Weisel underscored the humiliation that the complainant felt as a result of the assault on his religious beliefs: “The pain and suffering caused to a man when his hair is pulled need no explanation. The humiliation a religious man feels when he is degraded by having his beard and side curls – which have religious significance to him – pulled needs no explanation. This was illegal use of force whose only purpose was venting anger, and humiliation of the complainant. There was no legal justification. The video clip included with the complaint proves that the complainee acted brutally, used illegal force, and caused pain, humiliation, and public disgrace to the complainant.”
Attorney Weisel also cited the officer’s testimony. Under interrogation, the officer claimed that he had not pulled the complainant’s beard and side curls, and that the complainant had not screamed in pain. This testimony was contradicted by PIU investigators who had watched a video clip documenting the assault and also documented it in writing. Additionally, Attorney Weisel cited the refutation of the claim by the officer that he had acted as he had because the complainant assaulted another officer. The officer filming the incident stopped before it was over in an attempt to prevent documentation of the complainee’s brutality. In light of the evidence and the contradictions, Attorney Weisel demanded that an investigative case be opened and the officer be put on trial.
Honenu Attorney Eladi Weisel: “Again, unsurprisingly, the PIU chose to defend a brutal officer and close a case of severe brutality while covering up the investigation. Their customary behavior is even more outrageous in the complaint at hand in light of the fact that the accusations in the complaint are supported by a video clip that clearly documents the shocking, unjustified assault. Moreover, examination of the investigative material reveals that the PIU interrogators noted that the accused officer gave contradictory testimonies and was caught in several lies. Despite the lies that were revealed and the documentation of the assault, the PIU did not penalize the assailant. We hope that the appeals department will acknowledge the flagrant cover-up, accept the appeal and put the brutal officer on trial.”