Israeli Supreme Court Delays 13-Year Term for Jewish Man Convicted in 2018 Palestinian Woman’s Death

Israel’s Supreme Court has ordered a suspension of the 13-year prison sentence imposed on a young Jewish man convicted in connection with the 2018 death of a Palestinian mother of nine, ruling that the unusual circumstances of the case warrant allowing him to remain out of prison while his appeal is considered.

The decision, issued Tuesday by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ronnen, represents a significant development in a case that has generated years of legal controversy, particularly because the original conviction was reached by a divided panel of judges and rested entirely on circumstantial evidence.

The defendant, a resident of the Binyamin region who was a minor at the time of the incident, was convicted of killing Aisha al-Rabi, a Palestinian woman who died after a large rock struck the vehicle in which she was traveling with her family on Route 60 near the community of Rechelim in October 2018.

In September, the Lod District Court sentenced the defendant to 13 years in prison after two judges found him guilty of manslaughter under circumstances constituting an act of terrorism.

A third judge on the panel, however, disagreed with the majority and concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Following the sentencing, attorneys representing the defendant through the Honenu legal organization filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, challenging the conviction and requesting that the prison sentence be suspended until the appeal could be heard.

Justice Ronnen granted the request, determining that the case falls within the limited category of exceptional circumstances in which a convicted defendant may remain out of prison pending appellate review.

In explaining her decision, Ronnen noted that if the appeal ultimately succeeds and the conviction is overturned, the defendant would not be required to serve any prison sentence. Requiring him to begin serving the 13-year term immediately could therefore result in his spending time behind bars unnecessarily.

The justice also emphasized that the appeal could not be dismissed as frivolous or lacking any realistic prospect of success.

A central consideration was the fact that the District Court’s conviction relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, with one of the three judges concluding that the prosecution had failed to establish the defendant’s guilt to the required legal standard.

That judicial disagreement, particularly in a case carrying such a substantial prison sentence, was among the factors supporting the decision to delay incarceration.

Ronnen also considered the considerable time that has passed since the 2018 incident, the defendant’s lack of a prior criminal record, and the fact that he was a minor when the alleged offense occurred.

Another factor was his conduct throughout the lengthy legal proceedings. According to the court, the defendant has remained under restrictive conditions for years without committing additional offenses.

Taken together, those circumstances persuaded the Supreme Court that the defendant should not be required to begin serving his sentence before the appeal is resolved.

The defendant will remain subject to house arrest and other restrictions while the Supreme Court considers his challenge to the conviction.

Attorneys Yoram Halevy and Adi Keidar, who represent the defendant on behalf of Honenu, welcomed the ruling and expressed confidence that it could pave the way for a complete acquittal.

The attorneys described the decision as the opening step toward overturning the conviction, pointing to the substantial disagreement among the District Court judges and the dissenting opinion of the presiding judge, who favored acquittal.

They argued that the Supreme Court’s willingness to suspend the sentence reflects the seriousness of the legal questions raised by the appeal.

The defense team said it hopes the Supreme Court will ultimately adopt the reasoning of the dissenting judge and overturn the conviction, allowing their client to rebuild his life after an eight-year legal battle.