Israeli Court Acquits Man of Threatening PM Netanyahu Due to Mental State

A Rishon LeZion Magistrate's Court has acquitted a central Israel resident of making threats after he published a Facebook post calling for a lynching against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Judge Avi Westerman ruled that due to the defendant's mental state at the time of publication, it cannot be determined with certainty that he was criminally responsible for his actions. Alongside the acquittal, the court ordered the man to undergo mandatory outpatient psychiatric treatment for up to three years.

According to the indictment, the defendant published a post on his Facebook account targeting the prime minister, writing: "There is no forgiveness for the angel of destruction. Bibi to prison for destroying Israeli democracy. Who is in favor of a lynching for the furniture salesman from Caesarea?" Following the publication, a female user asked if he was calling for the prime minister's murder, to which he answered affirmatively. The user warned him that his remarks crossed the boundaries of legitimacy, but the defendant replied that he was ready to be arrested.

State prosecutors filed an indictment charging him with making threats, arguing that the publication was intended to intimidate or harass Facebook users and others, including attorney Avi Halevi, legal advisor to the Likud movement, by threatening physical harm to the prime minister. The trial focused on whether the defendant's mental condition allowed him to comprehend the significance of his actions. While the defense argued mental incapacity, the prosecution maintained he understood the consequences.

During the proceedings, conflicting psychiatric evaluations were presented. The prosecution's expert argued the man was aware of his actions, noting he answered police investigators coherently. Conversely, the defense expert assessed that the defendant was experiencing severe manic and psychotic symptoms at the time. Judge Westerman heavily criticized the prosecution for omitting a crucial psychiatric examination conducted on the exact day of the post, which documented a sharp deterioration in his condition and urged medication adherence. Consequently, the court ruled that reasonable doubt precluded a criminal conviction, mandating instead up to three years of psychiatric supervision.