Wanted: Retrial for Amiram Ben-Uliel

based on an interview by Shimon Cohen of Arnon Itiel in Arutz Sheva, translated by Hillel Fendel.

The latest public figure to call out the injustice of the conviction of Amiram Ben-Uliel, author and columnist Arnon Itiel, says that his confession of murder would not serve as an acceptable confession in Western countries, given that it was extracted under torture.

At the very least, Itiel says, the public debate surrounding Ben-Uliel's conviction in the Dawabsheh family murder must be reawakened.

Ben-Uliel is a young Israeli husband and father serving three life sentences in jail, including years of solitary confinement, for a murder he confessed to only after being severely tortured. He has maintained his innocence for years, and many claim he was framed simply because of the political need to prove that "Jewish terrorism" was being dealt with.

It is also alleged that he was framed to cover up a feud between two families in the Arab village of Duma. No fewer than ten homes in the village were reportedly set ablaze in a similar manner over the course of several months prior to the Dawabshe deaths as part of the internal strife there.

Itiel concluded by saying, "When Joshua conquered the Land of Israel, he suffered a defeat when Achan acted unethically and took booty from the vanquished. Today, as well, our redemption will not happen if the truth behind the Ben-Uliel case is not uncovered and rectified."

"Every minute that Ben-Uliel remains in prison," Itiel said, "is a is a stain on the conscience of every believing Jew." Western countries do not accept confessions extracted under torture, Itiel said, even if they are accompanied by reenactment, and murder convictions require additional evidence.

"Let's imagine that his name was not Amiram Ben-Uliel, but rather Yossi Ulilevitz," said Uliel, "and he was actually imprisoned in China or what used to be the USSR after confessing under torture. Our entire nation would be up in arms demanding his release! But when he is locked up here at home in a Jewish prison, by Jews, then everything is OK?"

Other prominent Israelis who have spoken out against the injustice to Amiram Ben-Uliel include Law Prof. Boaz Sangero (author of Convicting Innocents in Israel and the World and similar books, who has called the Ben Uliel case the worst example of an unjust conviction in Israel), Professor Yoel Elitzur (member of the Academy of the Hebrew Language), Prof. Talia Einhorn, the late Rabbi Chaim Druckman, Nobel Prize winner Prof. Shlomo Aumann, journalist Arnon Segal, Jonathan Pollard, Moshe Feiglin, and defense lawyer Avigdor Feldman.

Working against Ben-Uliel are his confession and re-enactment of the crime – but Itiel notes many cases in which the accused confessed and re-enacted, and yet the conviction was later overturned. In Israel alone, he says, "there have been Roman Zodorov, Amos Barness, Izat Nafsu, Sliman El-Abid, and more."

Among the many difficulties in the case against Ben-Uliel is the fact that an Arab eyewitness testified that he had clearly seen two arsonists that night, yet the indictment against Ben-Uliel charged that he had acted alone. In addition, two different types of Hebrew graffiti were found at the site, yet expert testimony stated that neither of them were written by Ben-Uliel.

The Shabak's Jewish Division denied that there had been any torture leading up to the confession – though the District Court in the case ruled straight out that there had indeed been torture.

The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI) said the decision to uphold a confession based on torture showed a “glaring oversight” in the legal system: “… it would have been appropriate for the court to have given decisive weight to the fact that before Ben Uliel confessed to the acts, interrogation methods involving severe and prolonged torture were applied to him."

See here for a detailed analysis of the what should have been the inadmissibility of Ben-Uliel's confession:

At the time, the Haaretz newspaper noted that the evidence against Ben Uliel included no objective evidence other than confessions obtained under duress and his own reenactment – which he later retracted, saying it was given based only on what the Shabak interrogators wanted to hear.

Itiel finds some reason for optimism in that "the new director of the Shabak, David Zini, is a man of integrity. The key is in his hands, because the real murderer is living in the Arab village of Duma. I call on Zini to do everything he can to find the real murderer. It shouldn't be hard; the Shabak is one of the most effective secret police entities in the world."

The Victim's Blood Cries out: Stop Stalling and Win!

by Michael Sparber, member of the Judea & Samaria forum, translated by Hillel Fendel.

"Bnayahu Melet, father of two and a member of his local military response team, was a man of truth, a fighter and a visionary. He was guided by truth, and was busy reclaiming for the Jewish People dunam after dunam of the Land of Israel. Bnayahu was a 'warrior of David' of our generation – a man forged of concrete [melet, in Hebrew], in whose merit, among others, we are all able to live here. Every conversation with him was a lesson that filled one with optimism and strength. For me, he always represented Trumpeldor and his comrades. How sorrowful is your passing, my beloved brother and teacher."

I wrote those words immediately upon learning that this great man, among the sons and builders (bane'ha ubone'ha, in Hebrew) of Eretz Yisrael, may G-d avenge his blood, had been murdered by ruthless Palestinians on his way to save lives. I did not write them by rote to console his family, or myself, but rather out of deep conviction of their utter truth. He was of that very rare type that combined vision and responsibility, faith and action, humbleness and strength. He was a walking lesson in love of the Land, in true comprehension of the security situation, and in deep faith that Israel will defeat its enemies if it simply believes in itself and stops seeking to merely "contain" them.

This is precisely why Bnayahu's death is not just a personal tragedy for his family and friends. It is of national proportions, and essentially presents a national test: Will we get stuck on trying to ascertain on how exactly he was murdered, or rather on whether the State of Israel will learn the lesson for which he lived and acted?

Bnayahu did not believe in "managing" the terrorism that engulfs us, but rather in vanquishing it. He did not accept the army's usual post-attack announcements that "we will pursue the murderers and bring them to justice," but insisted that the army must totally wipe out the ability of the entire terrorist mechanism to carry out further attacks.

Bnayahu's Blood Cries Out Not for Vengeance, but for Victory

Here precisely begins the responsibility of the Government of Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu's response to the two terrorist murders and other terrorist victims of that dark day was strong, but quite familiar: Destruction of the terrorists' houses, reinforcement of military forces, checkpoints, cancellation of work permits, collection of enemy weapons, and approvals for more Jewish farms. These are steps that are certainly important, operationally, but they still rely on that same old "conception" of responding to what is done to us. They do not initiate victory and the destruction of the enemy's infrastructure and ability to fight and kill us.

The recent chain of terrorist attacks demands a fundamental shift in perception. We can no longer rely on chasing each individual attacker. We must launch a continuous offensive against the entire terrorism-manufacturing system, until it breaks. Mr. Prime Minister, members of the Cabinet – you who are entrusted with the security of Israel's citizens - this is exactly the conception that we thought and hoped was shattered back on October 7th, nearly three years ago!

For years we told ourselves that we could contain Hamas, manage it, and control the "height of the flames" – and the price we ended up paying was the most terrible in the nation's history. How can we even consider repeating that same mistake in Judea and Samaria!?

As long as it is the terrorists who choose the time and place, manipulating Israel into responding according to the terms they have set, they retain the initiative. When we simply react, we are not striving for victory; at most, for attrition. The equation must be reversed. Israel must once again be the side that takes the lead and forces the other side to figure out how to respond. The terrorists must no longer be those who surprise the State of Israel, but those who wake up each morning with fear as to what Israel has in store for them today.

Mr. Prime Minister, the list of operations you announced following the recent murders is not a recipe for victory, but rather a routine inventory of actions that have been tried already thousands of times. If this is the response even after four terrorist attacks in just one day, it clearly means that nothing has changed - other than the amount of murdered Jews.

This is precisely the moment at which a country is tested. We know that we are good at responding, but now we have to see if we can free ourselves from the conception that has brought us to where we are.

Oct. 7^th was not just an intelligence failure. It was a collapse of an entire worldview that falsely held that we can manage a murderous enemy and keep it at bay according to our dictates. We learned that we cannot – and if this mistake continues to guide us today in Judea and Samaria, Heaven forbid, we will simply be reenacting the conditions that enabled the Gaza massacre. This would mean that we are not only desecrating the memory of those who fell, but also preparing the way for the next victims.

Bnayahu Melet's blood is crying out not for another checkpoint or house demolition, but rather to change the equation, regain the initiative, and win!