“Our dog, Shiko, was completely burned inside a bonfire right in front of our home,” Hanit Dahan, 40, from Kibbutz Neve Harif in the Arava, told Maariv.
Her small dog was allegedly thrown into a Lag Ba'omer bonfire in the kibbutz and burned to death.
“A message was sent in the kibbutz WhatsApp group saying there was a dog inside a bonfire. I went with my 18-year-old son to see. At first, we couldn’t find him, but later, after looking more thoroughly, we saw him. He was completely burned. This dog never harmed anyone. He had been with us since he was very young. I have a child younger than him. He was truly part of the family, and now he’s gone,” she said.
A preliminary police investigation found that the dog had been thrown into a Lag Ba'omer bonfire and burned to death. Two people employed at a luxury hotel operating in the area were arrested on suspicion of involvement in the act. As far as is known, one of them allegedly carried out the act while the other filmed it.
The two were arrested by police and brought before the Eilat Magistrate’s Court for a hearing on extending their detention. The suspicion against them is of killing or harming an animal.
Judge Zohar Divon extended the detention of the two suspects, Sami Barsoum from east Jerusalem and Najib Sa’ida, a resident of Neve Harif, until Sunday. In her decision, she wrote: “Although this is a suspect with no criminal record, the circumstances of the offense indicate exceptional cruelty, in a manner that points to dangerousness. There is also concern about obstruction of legal proceedings.”
Judge denies gag order on suspect name publication
It should be noted that the suspects’ attorneys requested a gag order on the publication of their names, arguing that publication could harm their work and lives in the small community.
However, the judge rejected the request: “In order to prohibit publication of the name of a suspect against whom no indictment has yet been filed, two cumulative conditions must be met. The first requires the suspect to convince the court that serious harm could result from the publication. The second is that preventing the serious harm must outweigh the public interest. The burden placed on a suspect seeking to prohibit publication of their name is a heavy one.”
The judge summarized her decision: “Although this is a suspect with no prior convictions, I did not find that he meets the two conditions established in case law, nor was I convinced that he would suffer serious harm as required. All claims raised by the suspect’s attorney regarding the harm that would be caused to him are claims inherent to any person suspected of criminal activity, and accepting the defense’s position could turn the exception into the rule and the rule into the exception. Beyond that, I believe there is a clear public interest in publishing the affair, and the defense explicitly agrees with this.”
During the detention extension hearing, the judge rejected arguments made by the attorney for one of the suspects, who claimed that the videos do not demonstrate the suspicions raised against the two men: “The behavior of the suspects after the incident raises sufficient suspicion in itself that they were directly involved in the killing of the animal.”
She also rejected the defense attorney's claim that kibbutz members had conducted an internal inquiry that found the suspects had no connection to the incident. According to her, the investigation should be conducted solely by the police.