top of page
Search

(February 23, 2023} An Israel television Channel 12 documentary on the murder of Yoel Lhanghal, aired earlier this month, has spelled out the intricacy of the case and helped explain why only one defendant has been indicted so far – and why it is not certain that even he will be convicted of murder.

ree
Liad Edri

Lhanghal, a 19-year-old B’nei Menashe boy from the Lower Galilee town of Nof Hagalil whose family immigrated to Israel in late 2021, was stabbed to death in a brawl on the night of October 6 in the far northern town of Kiryat Shmonah. A video clip from a security camera positioned above the small park in which the incident took place showed him and a B’nei Menashe friend, Tsafir Haokip, battling a large group of local youngsters, mostly teenagers, while his B’nei Menashe girlfriend, Kiryat Shmonah resident Hadassah Singson whom he was visiting, cries for help. This was the second such clash of the evening, an earlier one in the same park, in which Yoel’s teeth were broken and his cheek gashed, having been dispersed by the police. One of the two assailants in the second, fatal clash who was not a minor, Liad Edri, 21, was subsequently arrested and charged with murder by a Nazareth court. A date for his trial has yet to be set.


Yoel Lhanghal’s death shocked Israel’s B’nei Menashe community, in which many rumors about it and its subsequent police investigation have circulated and left a large number of unanswered questions. Among these have been:

  • How did the first of the two fights break out? Who was responsible for starting it? Was racism or anti-B’nei Menashe prejudice a factor?

  • Why, after the first fight, did the police leave the three young B’nei Menashe in the park rather than escort them out of it and bring Yoel to a hospital?

  • What made the group of teenagers, reinforced and led by Edri, who was not present at the first confrontation, return to the park for a second round of fighting?

  • Why was Edri charged with Yoel’s murder? Why, although the video clip showed Yoel, at the bottom of the flight of stairs on which he collapsed a few seconds later, being attacked by half-a-dozen or more boys, have there been no additional arrests or indictments? Was there a cover-up designed to protect the other youngsters -- all Kiryat Shmonah boys known to the local police? And if so, was racism a factor in this, too?

ree
Ilana Dayan

The Channel 12 documentary, a gripping hour-long account of what happened on the night of October 6 and in the days of the police investigation that followed, does not definitively answer all of these questions. It does, however, clarify many of them, and it provides the viewer with a better understanding of why other questions are still unsolved. Produced and narrated for her weekly program Uvdah (“Fact”) by Ilana Dayan, Israeli TV’s leading investigative journalist, its many interviews, conducted by Dayan’s staff with policemen, lawyers, and participants in the incident and their families, provide an almost minute-by-minute account of the events that led up to and came after the murder. Here are its main findings:


ree
Hadassah Singson

1. The first of the two fights that broke out was not deliberately started by either side but resulted from a series of misunderstandings aggravated by alcohol, which had been consumed by all involved, and by hot tempers all around. These flared up when thirteen and fourteen-year-old youngsters emerging from a birthday party in a nearby community center saw Yoel and Hadassah seated on a park bench in what seemed to them an odd position, wrongly suspected Yoel of molestation, and called the police.


ree
Yoel after first fight

Before the latter could arrive, however, tensions mounted, partly sparked by Yoel, who unlike Hadassah spoke almost no Hebrew, could not communicate with the Kiryat Shmonah group, was outraged by their suspicions, and broke a car window in his anger. Both sides then called for reinforcements, the Kiryat Shmonah group for others from the party, and Yoel and Hadassah for their friend Tsafir Haokip, a a Kiryat Shmonah resident and soldier on weekend leave from his unit in the Golani Brigade. In the fist fight that broke out, Yoel and Tsafir, though outnumbered, managed to hold their own. Tsafir, who soon afterward called his commanding army officer Ron on his cell phone and kept up a running conversation with him that throws light on much of what later happened, can be heard telling him, “They broke Yoel’s teeth but I knocked four of them to the ground”.


2. There is no evidence that racism had anything to do with this first clash. The teenagers who called the police seem to have been honestly if mistakenly concerned for Hadassah and gave no sign of acting from anti-B’nei Menashe motives.

ree
Tsafir Haokip

3. The police, whose senior officer, Haim Gabbai, was the father of a girl at the party, acted negligently in not taking Yoel to the hospital or at least offering him first aid. They were not, though, hostile to the three B’nei Menashe youths and chatted calmly with them and even joked with them. (“Calm down,” one of them told Yoel. “If there are any problems, I’m available. Just don’t slug anyone.”) Tsafir, it is true, seeing that the police and the teenagers were on familiar terms, told Ron over the phone, “They’re together in this, they’re together,” and said emotionally to the police, I came to this country to serve in the army and protect Israel, but you’re not helping us!” And yet if no attempt was made to arrest whoever injured Yoel, doing this would have required arresting Tsafir, too. The police appear to have been genuinely convinced that with their arrival the incident was over, and Gabbai was eager to drive his daughter home, which may have affected his judgment in not staying on the scene longer with the other policemen.


4. It is not clear why, after both the police and the Kiryat Shmonah teenagers left the scene, Yoel, Hadassah, and Tsafir chose to remain. Neither Hadassah nor Tsafir were interviewed by the Uvdah team, presumably because, as future witnesses at Edri’s trial, they were advised against it. Perhaps Hadassah was afraid to bring Yoel home to her family in his condition and they had nowhere else to go.


5. After being dispersed, the Kiryat Shmonah teenagers did not go home as the police assumed that they would. Intent on continuing the fight, they looked for others to join them and to return with them to the park. One such acquaintance they found was Liad Edri, who was reportedly told by one of them that “forty Thais” had attacked them and were beating up local children. (B’nei Menashe are frequently confused by Israelis with Thai workers, of whom there are many in Israel.) Edri then turned to a friend of his, a nineteen-year-old Druze resident of Kiryat Shmonah named Leith el-Arousi, and the two of them led a group of the teenagers back to the park.


6. When the group arrived at the park behind Edri and el-Arousi, it climbed a flight of stairs at the top of which Yoel, Tsafir, and Hadassah were seated. (Tsafir can be heard at this point worriedly telling his Golani commander, “They’re coming, they’re coming back!”). Yoel and Tsafir rose to confront them and an argument broke out in which Edri can be heard saying, “Why did you hit a child? Nobody hits children!” and Hadassah agitatedly answering, “What child? What child? Who told you that? Who?” The ensuing exchange between Edri and the two B’nei Menashe boys is inaudible, and the video camera then shows Tsafir shoving Edri, Edri striking back, and a melee breaking out in which Yoel and Tsafir are set upon by a large number of assailants.



ree
Melee at top of stairs

After a few seconds, the camera shows, the melee broke up and both sides ran down the stairs, with the Kiryat Shmonah group apparently in pursuit of Yoel and Tsafir. At the bottom of the stairs, the fighting was renewed. The camera shows Tsafir off to one side, exchanging blows, while Yoel is grabbed and wrestled to the ground by half-a-dozen or more youngsters whose faces cannot be clearly made out. Several can be seen striking him with knifing motions, but no knife is actually visible. While Yoel is lying helpless on the ground, a tall figure gives him a karate kick to his midsection.


The Kiryat Shmonah group then ran off. (The only racist remark recorded during the entire incident occurred at this point, when an unidentified girl is heard saying, “Cochinis, Koreans [sic!], they’re all assholes -- f---- them all!”) Hadassah and Tsafir sought to help Yoel. “He’s been knifed in the stomach, in the stomach!” Tsafir can be heard shouting on his cell phone to Ron while Hadassah tells him to lift Yoel’s legs to ease his bleeding.


7. The police were now called again, as was an ambulance, which took Yoel to Ziv Hospital in Safed. At this point he was still alive, In a recording of a conversation between a hospital staff member and a policewoman, who was uncertain about Yoel’s identity, the staff members tells her, “He’s a foreign worker.”

ree
Haim Gabbai

8. Yoel died during the night. Several days later Liad Edri was arrested and interrogated on suspicion of Yoel’s murder. Three sets of facts incriminated him. The first was his identification in the video clip as the tall figure who kicked Yoel. The second was his being shown by other cameras to have hurried after the incident to change and hide the blood-stained or torn clothes he had been wearing. The third was his several times having worriedly telephoned Police Officer Gabbai, whose daughter’s boyfriend he had once been, in the course of the same night to inquire about Yoel’s condition. (Gabbai, who has himself been indicted on a charge of suppressing evidence, failed to report the calls to his superiors.) In both his initial interrogation and afterwards, Edri admitted having kicked Yoel but denied having knifed him or having possessed a knife at the time of the incident.


9. Complicating the investigation was the existence of a second suspect, a Kiryat Shmonah boy referred to only as “the kid” because he is a fourteen-year-old minor. The “kid,” the police learned after having arrested Edri, fled the scene of the murder while being heard to say, “I stabbed the son-of-a-bitch, I stabbed the son-of-a-bitch!” He then went to the home of an older boy and handed him a knife, which the older boy said he buried in a field. (Searches for it have failed to find it.) Upon being questioned by the police, the “kid” retracted his boast and denied being the stabber and claimed to have been given the knife after the brawl by someone else. In the course of his interrogation, he twice changed his story of whom this “someone else” was and finally, pressured by the police to incriminate Liad Edri, said it was he. As of now, no legal action has been taken against him.


***************

What emerges from the Channel 12 documentary is a complicated picture. On the one hand, there is teenage drinking and violence, police incompetence, a cruel ganging up on unarmed boy who is brutally knifed and kicked when he is down and wounded. These are things that, though none of them should come as a surprise to Israelis who know their society, are highly disturbing.


ree
Tsiyon Shim’on

Yet at the same time, it needs to be said clearly: the documentary gives no reason to believe that the incident was a racist one or that the police, apart from Haim Gabbai’s failure to report Liad Edri’s phone calls, tried to cover anything up. Despite the ample documentation of the security cameras and Tsafir Haokip’s cell phone, the difficulties facing their investigation were genuine: the absence of a murder weapon, the blurred faces of Yoel’s assailants in the video clip, the existence of two suspects instead of just one, the conflicting stories told by the dozens of questioned teenagers. Yes, Liad Edri went out of his way to change his clothes after the murder as someone afraid of being accused of it might do,but as his lawyer Tsiyon Shim’on told an interviewer, “Liad was stressed out by the kick he had given” – which, delivered to Yoel’s bleeding stomach, could indeed have been interpreted as a death blow. Yes, the “kid” openly claimed he was the stabber, but as his lawyer, Yahli Sterling, sought to explain it, “Kids of his age are always boasting of things they haven’t done. They want to be in on the the action.”


The issue of anti-B’nei Menashe racism, which has been raised repeatedly in the wake of Yoel Lhanghal’s murder, is a painful one. Yet precisely because it is, it behooves everyone to be cautious about raising it. Not only is there no evidence of it being behind Yoel’s murder, there is no evidence that most B’nei Menashe have experienced it in Israel – or at least, that they have experienced it in any but trivial ways such as every group of immigrants to this country has had to face. Until Yoel’s death, indeed, racism against them was rarely discussed by them, and while this can be interpreted as a sign of the issue's repression, it can equally be taken to mean that it was not a matter of great concern. Only a thorough survey can tell us how serious an issue it is.



ree
The Knesset's Announcement of the March 13 session.

Until such a survey is conducted, it would be best not to generalize. The Knesset’s Committee on Aliyah and Aborption has announced a special session, to be held on March 13, on the subject of “The absorption and integration of the B’nei Menashe of India, the racism from which they suffer, and the government’s dealing with this issue in the light of the murder of Yoel Lhanghal.” But how much do the B’nei Menashe suffer from racism? If the answer is, “Not at all,” or “Only slightly,” or “Not in significant ways,” there can be no greater disservice to them than to convince them of the opposite. The last thing Israel’s B’nei Menashe need to be told is that they are not wanted in Israel when in fact most Israelis are happy to have them. Those who tell them this without proof may have different motives for doing so, one of which is to say: “If you are not succeeding as well as you should, don’t blame yourselves, the government or any specific organization for failing you -- blame Israeli racism for holding you back!” This is a tempting statement, especially if you are speaking for the government or a specific organization. It doesn’t necessarily make it justified.


















Happy endings are more common in the movies than in life, in which every end is the beginning of something else. Still, given all that Sarah Lamsi Baite and her daughter have been through in the last seven years, things could hardly be better .


Sarah’s story is well-known to readers of our Newsletter. A two-time widow and member of Churachandpur’s B’nei Menashe community since 2005, Sarah, now 44, has three children, the oldest of whom is married with a child, and the youngest of whom, a daughter, was raped as a 10-year-old by a Shavei Israel crony in 2016. Warned not to talk about the incident, Sarah was expelled from her Shavei Israel-controlled congregation for appealing for help to the neighborhood authorities, pressured to refrain from filing a police complaint, and barred from the Shavei-compiled Aliyah lists that her daughter’s assailant, who immigrated to Israel in 2018, was put on .When she first spoke to our Newsletter in December 2021 after a written plea to Israel’s Minister of Immigration and Absorption Pnina Tamano-Shata had gone unanswered, she was living with her severely traumatized child and eking out a bare living as a day laborer in nearby rice fields. “My daughter’s life is ruined,” she told us then. “Every time I talk about it, all the hurt comes back. I feel helpless, and it’s a reality I have to live with every day. I have no reason to be happy. Honestly, I have no expectations. I can only put my trust in God.”

ree
Sarah’s police complaint.

Then, though, the tide began to turn. As a result of our Newsletter’s first article about her, Sarah’s case was taken up by ranking Likud member Miri Regev on the floor of Israel’s Knesset, creating a wave of sympathy for her in the B’nei Menashe community. Buoyed by it and backed by Degel Menashe and Manipur’s B’nei Menashe Council, she mustered the resolve to walk into a Churachandpur police station and file the complaint she had long suppressed.


It was a liberating moment. A proud and brave woman who had silently suffered years of degradation, she had finally struck back. To be sure, the consequences were not long in coming. Sarah was denounced by Shavei Israel operatives in an attempt to make her retract her complaint, temporarily forced to flee Churanchandpur under threats of violence, and ejected upon her return from the house, owned by a Shavei Israel sympathizer, that she was living in as an exploited caretaker. Yet she refused to give in. Galvanized by her action, she set about rebuilding her life.


What a difference a year can make! Today, Sarah is living in a rented home of her own with a backyard in which she raises chickens and ducks for sale, runs a profitable sidewalk restaurant, and has a stand from which she sells the vegetables that she and her family grow on a plot of leased land.

ree
Sarah and grandson at her vegetable stand.

A talented singer, she also leads a choral group dedicated to performing and recording traditional B’nei Menashe songs. And her daughter, who for years was in a severe post-traumatic depression, is now back in school, has made friends, and is living a normal life. Recently, she was awarded 50,000 rupees by Manipur’s Child Welfare Committee in initial compensation for her ordeal.


All this would not have happened without Sarah’s grit and determination. But it also needed the support she received from Degel Menashe and the B’nei Menashe Council. The BMC especially, via the efforts of its chairman Lalam Hangshing and its general secretary Ohaliav Haokip, has accompanied Sarah closely over the past year. It has provided her with legal services, helped her with necessary paperwork, assisted her in finding and moving to a new home (for which it paid the first months’ rent), and forced her persecutors to back off by letting them know that she was under its legal and physical protection.


“And the BMC’s supporters in Israel,” Sarah told us, “even stepped in and bought me a new refrigerator for the little restaurant that I opened! This has been very useful to me, because I can now buy supplies for many days at once and save time. I typically serve forty to fifty customers on a good day. Even on less good ones, I earn enough to pay the bills.

ree
Taking a break at the restaurant.

In the morning, the customers are a mixture of children and adults dropping by for a quick breakfast on their way to work or school. Afternoons, it’s mostly the children coming for a snack before heading home. We serve paratha [an Indian flatbread with a potato filling], chow mein, and other lights meals with rice. Right now, we’re thinking of expanding the menu.


“This last year has been a very good one for my family,” Sarah says. “I’m so grateful to God. We have about twenty-five hatchlings in our back yard right now, which I’ll sell when they mature and turn a profit on. We grow more than enough for ourselves on the land that we’ve leased, mostly pumpkins, beans, and peas, and sell the rest at the stand that we operate. We’re comfortably off and never have to worry any more about where the next meal is coming from, or whether the landlord will renew the lease, or what the future will bring. And best of all, my daughter is smiling again!"


True, her daughter's rapist has not yet been brought to justice. Sarah still hopes that he will be. But the changes in their lives have been great, "In fact," she says, "I've never been happier!"


ree



(February 9, 2023) An exchange of letters between Israel’s Registrar of Non-Profit Organizations and the lawyers of Shavei Israel reveals the seriousness of the Registrar’s warning to Shavei that its Certificate of Proper Management is in danger of being revoked. Written months ago, the two letters recently came into our Newsletter’s possession.

ree
Michael Freund.

The first of the letters was sent on the stationary of the Ministry of Justice’s Israeli Corporations Authority, of which the Registrar of Non-Profit Organizations (rasham ha-amutot in Hebrew) is a division. Signed on the Registrar’s behalf by advocate Bat Sheva Weizman, the letter was dated August 15, 2022 and written in the context of Tel Aviv District Court judge Naftali Shilo’s April 15 decision that found Shavei Israel guilty of forging the signature of Sarah Green, the former wife of Shavei chairman Michael Freund, on numerous documents. (Green’s signature was forged, Shilo’s verdict implied, to help Freund and Shavei defend themselves against Green’s charge that her ex-husband embezzled 50 million shekels of family money for Shavei’s use.) Advocate Weizman wrote in paragraphs 5-7 of her letter:

“5. The Registrar holds that the factual findings in the Tel Aviv District Court’s verdict, and their implications in regard to the proper conduct of the organization [Shavei Israel] and its operative bodies, are severe, in light of which the Registrar is considering the revocation of the organization’s Proper Management Certificate issued for the years 2022-23.

“6. Before the Registrar decides to revoke the Proper Management Certificate given to the organization for 2022-23, it is extending to it the opportunity to respond to this letter and to present the Registrar with its arguments against the certificate’s revocation. The organization must do so within 14 days and no later than 29.8. 22.

“7. Be it understood that if the organization fails to respond to our letter by 29.8.22 in fulfillment of our request, the Certificate of Proper Management given it will be revoked without further notice.”

ree
Words in bold print threaten revocation of Shavei’s certificate by August 29.

A Certificate of Proper Management (nihul takin), while not needed for the existence a government-recognized amuta or non-profit organization in Israel, is required for it to be eligible for government contracts and to have tax-deductible status for the purpose of contributions. Since Shavei Israel’s response to the Registrar’s letter, made by the prominent Tel Aviv law firm of M. Firon & Co., was sent only on October 6, over a month after the Registrar’s August 29 deadline, it is not clear why its Proper Management Certificate was no revoked immediately.

Perhaps a request for a postponement was accepted. In view of the length of the law firm’s response, such a request would have been reasonable. Consisting of 17 pages and 102 numbered paragraphs, the response, written by M. Firon partner Na’ama Zer Kavod, sought to make the case that Shavei Israel should be allowed to retain its Proper Management Certificate regardless of the outcome of its appeal to the High Court of Justice, filed last June, of Judge Shilo’s decision. (As reported in last week’s Newsletter, the appeal was rejected by the High Court on January 22 of this year.)

ree

Long-winded and repetitive, these 102 paragraphs boiled down to the following main points:


1. Judge Shilo’s verdict was mistaken and Michael Freund and Shavei Israel did not forge Sarah Green’s signature.


2. Even if Freund and Shavei did forge the signature, they did so without criminal intent. The offense would have seemed negligible had not Green, who was determined “to ruin Mr. Freund financially, destroy the humanitarian project he had built at such pains….and make his life miserable,” chosen to make an issue of it.


3. Even if criminal intent could be proved, the offense took place long ago. ”The matter,” wrote Advocate Zer Kavod, “must be put in perspective -- that is to say, [it] occurred… at a time when they [the Freunds] were still married…. and has no bearing on the [current] conduct of the organization, let alone on improper behavior on its part that would justify so severe and irreversible a sanction as revoking its Proper Management Certificate.”


4. Even if a criminal offense that was committed years ago is sufficient reason for revoking an ordinary organization’s Certificate of Proper Management, Shavei Israel is not an ordinary organization. Shavei has done, wrote Zer Kavod, a “magnificent job” in bringing some 5,000 B’nei Menashe from India to Israel over the past 20 years. Without “its intensive activity, the B’nei Menashe community would never have come to Israel,” and although “the government of Israel has issued a call for every possible body to offer its services in the absorption of the B’nei Menashe [in Israel], no organization has been found that could do what it [Shavei] could.” If not for Shavei Israel, Zer Kavod argued, there would no B’nei Menashe community living in Israel today, and even if there were one, its members would be living lives of misery, unassisted and uncared-for. A negative decision on the Registrar’s part would thus be not only a “death blow” to Shavei itself, since it would “cripple its ability to work with the government of Israel and raise funds,” it would also do “irreversible harm” to the B’nei Menashe community and spell the end of its Aliyah.


In short, claimed Zer Kavod, Shavei Israel and Michael Freund did nothing wrong, and if they did do something wrong it was trivial, and if it was not trivial it deserves to be forgotten, and if it does not deserve to be forgotten it deserves to be forgiven, since Shavei is a wonderful organization that the B’nei Menashe cannot do without.

ree
Na’ama Zer Kavod.

One is reminded of the man who, accused by a neighbor of having cracked the borrowed pot he returned, replied: “In the first place, I never borrowed your pot. Secondly, I returned it in perfect condition. Thirdly, it was already too cracked to be used when you lent it to me. And lastly, I’d like to have it back because my family needs it to cook with.”


It is Advocate Zer Kavod’s last point that is most laughable. One after another, its claims are patently false. To begin with, the B’nei Menashe’s Aliyah started in the early 1990s, under the auspices of Rabbi Eliyahu Avichail, a decade before Shavei Israel appeared on the scene; nor has Shavei brought 5,000 B’nei Menashe to Israel (whose actual B’nei Menashe population is more like 4,500), close to a thousand having come in Avichail’s time and many hundreds more having been born here. The true number brought by Shavei is closer to 3,000. Averaged over the 20-year period in which the organization has had sole responsibility for the B’nei Menashe’s Aliyah, this comes to a 150 immigrants per year – hardly a record to be proud of.


Moreover, as every B’nei Menashe and every reader of our Newsletter knows, Shavei Israel, far from having done a “magnificent job” in bringing these 3,000 B’nei Menashe, has done a reprehensible one. It has used the monopoly given it over the B’nei Menashe’s Aliyah to control and intimidate the B’nei Menashe community and dictate its way of life. It has played favorites, bringing its protégés to Israel and putting its opponents on Aliyah blacklists. It has done almost nothing to help the B’nei Menashe in Israel advance economically or integrate into Israeli life. It has ignored and sought to suppress protests and petitions against its policies by large segments of the B’nei Menashe community. And it has, in its effort to retain its exclusive control of the B’nei Menashe community, tried to block the efforts of others to help it, both in Israel and in India. It is simply not true, as Advocate Zer Kavod asserts, that “the government of Israel has issued a call for every possible body to offer its services” in aiding the B’nei Menashe – and a major reason that it has not done so is that Shavei Israel has not wanted it to.


Will the Registrar of Non-Profit Organizations be made aware of these and other damning facts before rendering its decision on Shavei Israel’s status? One can only hope that it will be, and that it will not misled by the false light in which Shavei’s lawyers have cast it. Arguing that it is a trivial offense to commit forgery in order to cover up the embezzlement of funds is not worthy of a serious law firm; adding to this the contention that this offense was in a good cause is turning a blind eyes to Shavei’s true nature..


On the 6th of November, 2022, state attorney Ya’akov Hillman, writing to the High Court in regard to Shavei Israel’s appeal, stated: “The Registrar’s Office has decided that after the honorable Court’s decision, and in accordance with it, it will review the question of revoking the organization’s Certificate of Proper Management. Concomitantly, it will weigh the need for invoking additional measures of enforcement, including a request for the organization’s dissolution.”


The Registrar is now called upon to act.








SHARE YOUR STORY. SEND US A LETTER.

CONTACT US

Isaac Thangjom, Project Director

degelmenashe@gmail.com

CONNECT WITH US
  • YouTube
  • facebook (1)
SUBSCRIBE

© 2020 DEGEL MENASHE

bottom of page