Maybe he should sue the Palestinian he allegedly abused for essentially calling him a liar as well - by Prof. Asher Maoz

...How strange. When police investigators concluded, based on the gathered testimonies, that Issacharoff did not commit the alleged crime, the prosecution should have put him on trial anyway just so the court could "prove his claims?" And how would such a trial go? Would the prosecution argue that Issacharoff is innocent while his defense attorneys try proving his guilt?

Prof. Asher Maoz..
Israel Hayom..
19 November '17..
Link: http://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/exonerated-to-his-chagrin/

Such a surrealistic phenomenon is seldom seen in these parts. Police investigators, looking into allegations of serious misconduct on the part of a soldier, discover that the incident in question never happened. The prosecution decides to close the case due to lack of guilt, but instead of the defendant celebrating, he and his friends lament the exoneration.

The incident began when Breaking the Silence disseminated a video of Lt. (res.) Dean Issacharoff confessing to abusing a Palestinian who had resisted being handcuffed. For those wondering why Issacharoff would condemn himself in this fashion, it has emerged that when he doesn't serve in the IDF reserves, he serves as spokesperson for the anti-Israel nongovernmental organization. The organization is vilified for spreading anonymous "testimony," which makes it impossible to investigate and prosecute soldiers who transgressed or to disprove the charges. Indeed, the organization opens the video by saying it contains "chilling testimony of an IDF officer who served in Hebron, who attests to viciously assaulting a Palestinian for no reason and without being asked to do so."

The purpose behind publishing this "difficult and painful testimony" becomes apparent during the video's epilogue. "Has Dean been investigated for his actions?" the organization asks, "Is he a danger to the public, as claimed by the prosecutor in the trial of IDF soldier Elor Azaria?" And Breaking the Silence vowed: "More to follow…"

And more did indeed follow. The attorney general ordered an investigation, leading to the subsequent plot twist. Instead of rejoicing that the video prompted an investigation, Breaking the Silence's Executive Director Avner Gvaryahu objected to the "political investigation" and promised that "hundreds of former soldiers who have broken the silence would be happy to come and testify and expose what [Justice Minister Ayelet] Shaked and her friends are trying to hide."

This is an odd claim to be sure, as among those "hundreds of soldiers" only Issacharoff has come forward. Gvaryahu's gripe was supported by leftist groups, who said the goal of the investigation was to "intimidate and frighten critics of the occupation from using their voices."

At the same time, it was leaked that the investigation "wouldn't lead anywhere" because "it was unreasonable" to expect the police to locate the allegedly abused Palestinian detainee – and that without a complainant there could be no conviction.

The Azaria trial should have taught Breaking the Silence that when a crime against a Palestinian is exposed – and not by B'Tselem, either – the authorities investigate it thoroughly without waiting for a formal complaint. In the case of Azaria specifically, the defendant was tried and punished. Breaking the Silence, however, underestimated the investigative acumen of the police.


Investigators found the Palestinian, who confirmed he was indeed detained and handcuffed after he and his friends threw rocks at IDF soldiers, but was not beaten, was not injured, did not bleed and did not pass out. His version was substantiated by testimonies from Issacharoff's comrades, who were with him at the time of the alleged incident. It appears these horrific acts never occurred. It is uncommon to find such compatibility between the IDF's version and that of the Palestinian "victim."

Under these circumstances, as stated, the case was closed due to a lack of guilt. Rather than revel at dodging the same fate as Azaria, Issacharoff's attorney, Gaby Lasky, remonstrated: "We want to go to trial, where it will be possible to discuss the evidence possessed by all the sides, in an open and public manner and prove [Issacharoff's] claims."

How strange. When police investigators concluded, based on the gathered testimonies, that Issacharoff did not commit the alleged crime, the prosecution should have put him on trial anyway just so the court could "prove his claims?" And how would such a trial go? Would the prosecution argue that Issacharoff is innocent while his defense attorneys try proving his guilt?

Lasky is too experienced an attorney to pursue such a trial. Anyone studying for the bar exam, not to mention any first-year law student, knows it is a terrible idea. She knows she cannot bring the matter before the court.

Issacharoff's subordinates and commanders released a video in which they denied his allegations and called him a liar. Issacharoff will sue them for defamation of character and let the court discuss the matter "openly and publicly," and determine if he indeed transgressed. Perhaps Issacharoff should also sue the Palestinian he allegedly abused for essentially calling him a liar as well.

Professor Asher Maoz is the dean of the School of Law at the Peres Academic Center.

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.