Attorney Found Guilty Following Posts After Hamas Attack

Disciplinary Action Against Lawyer

The Disciplinary Court of the Israel Bar Association in Tel Aviv has convicted attorney Maha Agbaria for improper conduct unbecoming of a legal professional. This ruling follows her social media posts in the wake of the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023.

Posts in Question

The court’s ruling highlighted critical posts made by Agbaria on her social media accounts. On the day of the attack, she shared a post that read “Good morning Gaza,” accompanied by heart symbols and the Palestinian flag. The following day, she made another post stating, “I’m Palestinian, let’s start with that. Even if I’m your friend, I have always been and will always be on the side of my people wherever they are and in every way of resistance they choose to respond to the occupation, the siege, and apartheid.”

While Agbaria claimed her defense is based on selective enforcement, arguing that other lawyers who expressed similar views were not prosecuted, the court dismissed this argument. It stated that accepting her claim would imply that legally questionable statements by lawyers could not be enforced in private discourse.

Court Findings

The court deemed her initial post as a “display of joy over the attack from Gaza against Israel.” Furthermore, in her subsequent post, Agbaria legitimized the Hamas attack as a “form of resistance,” perceiving it as a “legitimate response to occupation, siege, and apartheid.”

Claims from Agbaria’s defense that the posts could be interpreted as a grammatical mistake or as expressions of concern for the residents of Gaza were rejected. The court emphasized, “The seriousness of the posts increases, especially given that the second post was shared after the devastating outcomes of the Hamas attack became clear.”

Comparison to Previous Cases

The court compared this case to that of Member of the Knesset Haneen Zoabi, where statements supporting terrorism and the killing of civilians were ruled as violations of ethical norms. According to the verdict, Agbaria’s statements amounted to “expression of understanding, legitimization, and identification with acts of terrorism.” However, she was acquitted of failing to respond to a complaint due to procedural defects in the complaint’s handling.

Implications

This ruling serves to underscore the delicate balance between freedom of expression and professional conduct within the legal profession, especially in the context of sensitive geopolitical issues. Legal professionals are reminded that their public statements can carry significant consequences for their careers and reputations.

As events continue to unfold in the region, the implications of such rulings and the public responses from legal figures will be closely monitored