The second Bagatz hearing of Ellen and Mark Newman against the prosecutors in the Attorney General’s Office will be held on Monday, September 23rd at 9:00 a.m. The first Bagatz hearing was in October 2018. Ariel Newman a”h was killed on September 10, 2014.
The Israeli prosecutors continue to fight against attaining justice when Americans are negligently killed and this must no longer be tolerated, say the victim's parents. "Why is the Israel Supreme Court giving any deference to the purported professional judgement of biased prosecutors? It is as clear as day they are acting in the role of desperate defense attorneys for criminals and not performing as criminal prosecutors for the State."
The single most powerful example of the unprofessional bias in the State Attorney’s Office, among a number of examples, is what happened after Ellen and Mark Newman, along with their attorney Amos Fried met Natan Bozna, the police commander of the Negev District in his office in Be’er Sheva in August 2017; police commander Bozna stated directly to them that it is evident the Newmans’ son, Ariel Yitzchak, was negligently killed. He committed to creating a new police task force that would interrogate and cross-interrogate everyone with relevant information in both Israel and the U.S. Unfortunately, shortly after that, the State Attorney’s Office heard of Bozna’s actions, ordered him to stand down, told him not to conduct any such investigation, and directed him to disband his new task force. This corrupt order must have emanated from either Sharon Edri, the Chief of Appeals in the State Attorney’s Office, or her direct superior Shlomo Lamberger, the Deputy State Attorney for Criminal Matters. They have much to answer for.
Consider the following regarding the organized hike on which Ariel Yitzchak was negligently killed only a week after landing in Israel: Even the parents of the ten Israeli high school students killed in April 2018 on that Mechina-organized hike understood their children could possibly be alive if only the prosecutors had already arrested, indicted, and prosecuted Mechinat Yeud’s Joshua Ettinger and Rabbi Yaakov Shapira for the negligent homicide of 18-year-old Ariel Yitzchak killed in 2014 on an organized hike in the same general area. Ariel Yitzchak had graduated high school in the US in June 2014 and went to attend Mechinat Yeud for nine months beginning early September 2014. A week after he landed in Israel on September 3rd, he was dead due to exertional heat stroke on a wildly inappropriate Mechinat Yeud-organized hike The similarities between his death and the ten Israeli deaths three and a half years later were so obvious, the families came to the first Bagatz hearing in October 2018 to lend their support to the Newmans and they made the linkage explicit at a subsequent Knesset hearing as well.
The bias against American victims of negligent homicide in Israel is extreme as Israel’s prosecutors have never once ever arrested or indicted anyone in such a situation when the victim is an American.
But the specifics of this case should be most alarming to anyone who is concerned about whether Israel adheres to the rule of law, a concept that demands equal application in a negligent homicide case whether the victim is Israeli or American.
1-If the prosecutors never bothered to interrogate Mechinat Yeud’s Education Director Rabbi Naftali Rothstein, the driver of the evacuation vehicle on the hike, and their only response to the Israel Supreme Court’s show cause order in December 2018 is that interrogating Rothstein is too much trouble, doesn’t this reflect blatant unprofessional bias?
2-If the prosecutors never bothered to request the helicopter rescue report, doesn’t this reflect blatant unprofessional bias?
3-If the prosecutors never bothered to interrogate many people on the hike and not cross-interrogate anyone except very briefly Joshua Ettinger, Mechinat Yeud’s Program Director and hike leader, doesn’t this reflect blatant unprofessional bias?
4-If Mechinat Yeud’s Rosh Yeshiva and Head of School, Rabbi Yaakov Shapira, admits he is the head of the school but claims he isn’t responsible for anything, and the prosecutors accept this at face value, isn’t that blatant unprofessional bias?
5-If Ettinger, the hike leader, admits he didn’t tell the truth about his lack of any legally-required credentials and admits he didn’t comply with MASA’s one and only requirement regarding safety in hiking, and the prosecutors ignore this, isn’t that blatant unprofessional bias? Ettinger had complete knowledge and intent.
6-When the prosecutors ignore the Israel Ministry of Education’s own website on when and by whom it is safe for that specific hike to take place, isn’t that blatant unprofessional bias? The organized hike that Ettinger led did not meet any of the safety criteria on this official governmental website.
7—When the prosecutors ignore that Ettinger wrote in advance he is going to make the young men do the hike in 6 hours—which everyone knows should take 8-10 hours by intermediate to advanced hikers, should never be done in the summertime and never in the middle of the day (all according to the Israel Ministry of Education’s website)—and then they will climb Masada, isn’t that blatant unprofessional bias? Ettinger had complete knowledge and intent.
8-When the prosecutors ignore the Israel Ministry of Tourism official who said on the record to the police that that specific hike at that time of the year at that time of day by rank beginners just off the airplane one week prior was completely unreasonable, isn’t that blatant unprofessional bias?
9—When the prosecutors ignore three written testimonies that Ariel Yitzchak cried out for his life saying he had heat stroke, he felt like he was going to die, and he needed to go back immediately in the car, to which Ettinger told him: “no, keep going!”, isn’t that blatant unprofessional bias? [Note that two others on the hike provided additional testimony to the police they had heard Ariel Yitzchak earlier complain he needed to stop and go back, as the second day of the two-day hike was too difficult with the very intense heat and the long hours of exertion in that heat with very little rest. Not one single witness testified that Ariel Yitzhak couldn’t have said the above to Ettinger. Any claim by the prosecutors that there is “conflicting” testimony is factually not true. Among the few witnesses questioned superficially by the Arad police, there were a couple that couldn’t confirm that aspect of the abovementioned three written testimonies, given they were exhausted and weak themselves sitting in a different place talking with other people. Lack of corroboration is not conflicting or exculpatory testimony. If the prosecutors don’t know this, they need to go back to law school.]
10—When all ten items on Ariel’s Checklist—approved by Professor Yoram Epstein, Israel’s leading scientific authority on exertional heat stroke—were violated and the prosecutors ignore this, isn’t that blatant unprofessional bias? [The prosecutors and the police never once bothered to question any scientific expert on exertional heat stroke regarding this homicide caused by exertional heat stroke.] arielschecklist.com
There is more, of course, but you get the idea. Based on what logic or legal reasoning can any Court anywhere defer to the judgment of such blatantly biased prosecutors?
If Israel is to be considered a country under the rule of law, then the prosecutors must enforce the law no matter who is the victim of negligent homicide. And if they are so biased that they can’t, which is apparently a measured description of the Israeli prosecutors, then the Israel Supreme Court needs to remind them what their job is: Prosecute crimes and hold criminals accountable—even when the victim is an American 18-year-old son and only child.
Israel must be safe for all. Israel must be just for all.