Court ruling10/9/2026

Supreme Court Increases Sentences of Father and Son for Assaulting Attorney

The Supreme Court of Israel granted the prosecution's appeal and extended the prison terms of Ibrahim Najjar and his son, who was a minor at the time of the assault. Attorney Ronen Ben-Zvi suffered severe and irreversible brain damage and is completely dependent on the assistance of others.

Key facts

•Court: Supreme Court of Israel
•Case number: Not specified in the original source
•The assault occurred in July 2025
•Son's sentence: 6 years and 8 months instead of 4 years
•Father's sentence: 3 years instead of 2 years
•The name of the statute applied was not specified in the original source

The Dispute Over the Apartment

According to the amended indictment, Ibrahim Najjar attempted to purchase a nearby apartment for less than its value, intimidated the apartment's owner, and prevented the property from being rented out. He later rented the apartment to other people without permission. The owner retained attorney Ronen Ben-Zvi to have the property vacated.

The Assault and Its Consequences

In July 2025, Ben-Zvi arrived at the building in Jaffa in the course of his work and became involved in a confrontation with the father. Najjar's son attacked the attorney from behind, struck him on the head and neck, and continued kicking him in the head after he fell. Ben-Zvi managed to call the police, but subsequently lost consciousness; he was taken to the hospital in critical condition. The assault left him with severe and permanent brain damage and without physical or cognitive independence.

The Supreme Court's Decision

The Tel Aviv District Court initially sentenced the son to four years in prison and the father to two years. The Supreme Court granted the appeal filed by the Criminal Department of the State Attorney's Office, dismissed the convicted defendants' appeals, and increased the son's sentence to six years and eight months and the father's sentence to three years. The case number and date of the judgment were not specified in the original source.

Why the Sentences Were Increased

In the son's case, the Court considered the exceptional severity and irreversibility of the harm, his dangerousness, and the need to protect the public, notwithstanding that he was a minor when the offense was committed. The Court also pointed to the need to raise the level of punishment for serious violence among minors, against the backdrop of the increase in the number and severity of such cases. In increasing the father's sentence, the Court took into account his significant role, his criminal record, his failure to genuinely accept responsibility, and the fact that he did not compensate the victim for his injuries; actions by the father and son to conceal evidence and influence witnesses were also reported.

What this means for you

The decision shows that being a minor does not in itself preclude a lengthy prison sentence for exceptionally serious violence with irreversible consequences. When reconsidering a sentence, the Court may take into account the convicted person's dangerousness, the need to protect the public, the person's conduct after the offense, criminal record, and attitude toward compensating the victim for the harm suffered.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings