Supreme Court Lengthens Sentences for Father and Son in Jaffa Lawyer Assault

The Supreme Court upheld the State Prosecutor's appeal, significantly increasing the prison sentences for a father and son convicted of the brutal assault on lawyer Ronen Ben-Zvi in Jaffa. The son, who was a minor at the time of the 2025 incident, had his sentence raised from four years to six years and eight months. The father, Ibrahim Nagar, saw his sentence increased from two to three years in prison. The violent attack left Ben-Zvi with irreversible brain damage and total dependency on others.

Brutal Attack and Severe Consequences

The incident took place in July 2025, when Ben-Zvi arrived at a building in Jaffa as part of his work on a property eviction. According to the amended indictment, the father confronted the lawyer while his son sneaked up from behind, punching him in the head and neck. The son continued to kick Ben-Zvi in the head even after he fell to the ground, ignoring his pleas and cries. Supreme Court Justice Noam Solberg emphasized the severity of the crime, writing that the perpetrators' actions completely shattered Ronen's life and turned his family's world upside down.

The savage violence destroyed Ronen's life and turned the lives of his loved ones upside down forever. From a vital, active, dedicated lawyer and loving family man, Ronen has become a broken shell.

Family Tragedy and Criticism of Police

Ronen's brother, Doron Ben-Zvi, expressed deep anguish over his brother's condition, noting that Ronen suffers from permanent brain damage, can barely speak, and no longer recognizes his loved ones. Doron and his mother care for Ronen 24 hours a day. While welcoming the Supreme Court's decision to lengthen the sentences, Doron criticized the police investigation, claiming that delays allowed evidence to be concealed and resulted in a lenient original indictment.

The court noted that prior to the attack, the father had attempted to intimidate a property owner to acquire a neighboring apartment below market value. The Supreme Court underscored that the father's extensive criminal record and lack of remorse fully justified the harsher penalties, establishing a strict judicial stance against youth violence.