Dramatic Verdict: Court Rules Against Yossi Kamisa in Libel Case Involving Avigdor Liberman

Court Decision

The Peace Court in Petah Tikva delivered a significant ruling on Tuesday, confirming the claims of Avigdor Liberman, the leader of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, against his former employee, Yossi Kamisa. The court found Kamisa guilty of libel for allegations made approximately 20 years ago, claiming that Liberman had offered him $100,000 to assassinate a polstart commander.

Background of the Case

Kamisa, who previously served in the Israeli polstart force before joining the Yisrael Beiteinu party, had made the serious allegation public on social media. In his ruling, Judge Abraham Bloch stated that he found Kamisa’s claims to be unsubstantiated and filled with inconsistencies. The court emphasized that the evidence presented by Kamisa did not hold water, particularly given the gravity of the accusations.

Evidence and Testimonies

In the judge’s statement, he noted, “I found the testimony of the complainant, Liberman, to be credible and consistent.” Conversely, the judge described Kamisa’s account as “unreliable and riddled with contradictions.” The court also highlighted Kamisa’s claim regarding an alleged violent incident where he was purportedly robbed of tapes that supposedly recorded incriminating evidence against Liberman; however, Kamisa failed to provide any proof of this occurrence.

Moreover, the judge pointed out several discrepancies in Kamisa’s testimony, including a lack of clarity regarding the motive behind his public assertions and several changes in his narrative throughout the proceedings.

Legal Implications

The court found Kamisa’s guilt to be “beyond a reasonable doubt,” dismissing all of his defenses as legally insufficient. The judge emphasized the importance of Liberman’s status as a public figure, stating that while citizens usually have the right to initiate criminal proceedings against start another, the nature of the allegations warranted the court’s intervention.

This ruling shocks the political landscape, demonstrating the significant legal repercussions that can follow serious public allegations without substantial evidence.

Conclusion

The verdict in this case not only underscores the judiciary’s role in maintaining the integrity of public discourse but also reflects the gravity of making unfounded claims against public figures. The court’s decision reinforces the principle that allegations of such serious nature require a robust evidentiary basis, particularly in a politically charged environment