Gaby Lasky, who is representing anarchists Kobi Snitz and Ilan Shalif, filed a request with the Attorney General to stay the proceedings against her clients. The case is related to a complaint filed by the Ad Kan Organization, which claims that the anarchists participated in riots where IDF soldiers were injured.
In response to Lasky’s request, the Ad Kan Organization filed a response with the State Prosecutor’s Officer arguing that Kasky’s request should be denied. Ad Kan’s response also included a letter from Liran Baruch, Chairman of the Forum for Disabled IDF Veterans, who asked that the AG protect soldiers in the field.
The Ad Kan Organization’s response described the violent riots that Kobi Snitz and Ilan Shalif participated in: “Every week, these riots turned violent. Over the course of many years, Snitz and Shalif supported the violent Palestinian protesters, which ultimately led hundreds of protesters and many IDF soldiers to be injured. This includes several IDF soldiers who were permanently wounded.”
Ad Kan also responded to several claims by the anarchists’ attorneys, including an argument regarding “civil protest” and “freedom of speech”: “The situation being discussed is one where large stones were thrown at IDF soldiers and does not at all fall under these arguments.”
The response then continues by quoting Liran Baruch, whose injuries occurred during a protest similar to the ones described in the complaint. Baruch explains how he lost his eye “as a direct result of provocations by anarchists that inflamed the region.” Furthermore, he stated, “If the stay of proceedings is granted, I will feel that another stone has struck me, now in my second eye. We cannot allow IDF soldiers to be injured by anarchists who fund, organize, and participate in violent riots aimed at harming soldiers.”
Baruch added: “I am suffering from post-traumatic stress, as well as my lost vision. I will suffer like this for the rest of my life, but what about future soldiers? Certainly you, as the AG, do not want to allow lawbreakers and criminals to hide behind the defense of freedom of speech. Their actions have caused injuries to dozens of soldiers who were recognized as injured veterans and have permanent scars for the rest of their lives.”
Ad Kan’s response continued by noting that granting a stay of proceedings based on “harm to freedom of expression and the right to protest,” would “mean spitting in the faces of generations of IDF soldiers and injured veterans. The State cannot claim to ‘defend the riots of citizens’ while throwing soldiers under the bus and allowing them to be attacked every week.”
The response concludes by remarking that the defendants are not “a special case” as required for a stay of proceedings. Moreover, the response notes, the defendants have continued to participate in these same riots every week even after the complaint was filed and the stay of proceedings was requested.
One of the defendants, Jonathan Pollak, has shown even more audacity by publishing an op-ed claiming that the Israeli Courts are illegitimate and that he intends to continue violating the law. The Ad Kan response asks, “Should he be rewarded for this? In light of everything written above, we believe that the request for a stay of proceedings must be rejected out of hand.”