Not all doors are born equal: this is how it is determined who will be arrested and which case will be closed

This is a service column. If the summer and the children after the summer camps are weighing on you, and you are considering smashing some office door, or you just want to release some vandalism - it is important that you know: not all doors are born equal. There is a door that will earn you detention until the end of proceedings, and there is a door that will earn you a closed case and the aura of a brave underground fighter. The difference is not in the act, but in the address.

First case: Avraham Khadi from Ramat Gan smashed the doors of Channel 12 with bricks, and it turns out also "Haaretz" and the Ministry of Justice, and also left touching warning letters.

The system locked onto him, and quite rightly, like a Swiss watch: arrest, an indictment with seven counts and a request for detention until the end of proceedings. All this happened within about a month. In his interrogation, Khadi tried to explain: "It wasn't me, it's the demons and spirits". It didn't help. The prosecution does not believe in demons.

So far everything is excellent. Without a gram of sarcasm: whoever smashes doors and threatens murder - should sit. Let him sit. The second case? You better sit down.

Jerusalem morning, March 9, 2023, dozens of "Brothers in Arms" activists block the offices of the Kohelet Forum with sandbags and barbed wire (!) in the middle of Jerusalem. They break inside, lock a terrified worker inside ("They laughed at me that I was shaking"), and outside they beat the CEO Meir Rubin. The Kohelet Institute is a research institute. People and doctoral students work there who write long position papers loaded with citations.

And the violence? Cameras, media invited in advance, a "performance". Some of them were wearily arrested on the spot, and of course released the same day. Seven were interrogated and declared their actions in the protocol. Fingerprints of Eyal Nave were found on the sandbags, if such a finding was even needed for a person who was filmed with the bags. He was not even summoned for interrogation. Rubin filed a complaint. It was closed.

And what did the prosecution do with this filmed and open performance? "In-depth examination".

Two and a half years of such in-depth examination - that along the way everything evaporated: interrogations were shortened to minutes, witnesses were interrogated only after two years, and there is no documentation that anyone even bothered to watch the materials from the police drone. The District Attorney's Office announced: "The evidence does not constitute a sufficient infrastructure for prosecution". Seven signed confessions? Not an infrastructure.

And what a pace - jazz! A month for Avraham Khadi, two and a half years for the guys with the brown shirts. It turns out that the more solid the evidence - the longer it takes to evaporate it.

In short, an updated prosecutorial dictionary: a brick in the door of Channel 12 - extortion with threats. Barbed wire at the entrance to a research institute - protest art. Locking a worker - a happening. One confession of Khadi, which he retracted - conclusive evidence. Seven proud confessions of "Brothers in Arms" - food for thought. Filmed beatings of a CEO on the street in broad daylight - perpetrator unknown.

So what is the difference? Both have an ideological motive. Documentation? In abundance, especially among those with the brown shirts. Confessions? The "Brothers" had a "seven for the price of one" operation. Only the door remained. A brick in the right door gives birth to a quick and decisive indictment. Barbed wire in front of the wrong door and violence towards the wrong CEO? Case closed, quiet, nothing to see.