The Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court convicted MK Ofer Cassif of assaulting a police officer during a protest in the South Hebron Hills more than four years ago.
The conviction, handed down on Thursday by Judge Bialin Elazar, was for assaulting a police officer under aggravated circumstances, an offense punishable by between three months and five years in prison. The offense applies when an assault is connected to an officer’s lawful duties and is intended to obstruct, prevent or interfere with their work.
Sentencing arguments are scheduled for January 13 next year.
Responding to the conviction in a post on X/Twitter, Cassif wrote: “I will continue my struggle, together with my friends, against all the crimes of the occupation: genocide, ethnic cleansing, and fascism within Israel. I promise you that we will emerge stronger from the election and send the Kahanists and all the criminals where they belong.”
The incident took place on May 13, 2022, in Masafer Yatta, a cluster of Palestinian communities in the South Hebron Hills at the center of a decades-long dispute over evictions from an area designated as an IDF firing zone. The communities’ struggle against demolition and displacement was documented in No Other Land, the Israeli-Palestinian film that won the 2025 Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature.
According to the indictment, protests were held in the South Hebron Hills on that day in 2022, following a Supreme Court ruling concerning villages in Masafer Yatta. Orders were issued declaring the area around the Route 317 junction and dirt roads leading to the villages a closed military zone.
Cassif arrived by car to join the protesters, after about 80 had arrived at around 11 a.m. and eventually set up camp on one of the dirt roads leading to Masafer Yatta. Because Cassif had parliamentary immunity, security officers allowed him to move freely between the designated and approved protest area and the area outside it.
However, security personnel stopped his vehicle on a dirt road and prevented him from driving into the protest area, citing safety concerns and the prohibition on Israelis entering Area A. He was permitted to continue on foot.
According to the indictment, Cassif later returned to the car to drive it, leading to a heated argument with Border Police Ch.-Insp. Dor Amitai and police officer Yitzhak Azulay.
Cassif called Border Police officers 'scum of the human race,' court says
According to a court summary, Cassif called the officers “dirty liar,” “fraud,” “criminal,” and “scum of the human race.”
Cassif then got into his car. With Azulay standing in front of the vehicle to block it, Cassif reversed several meters and then drove slowly forward until the front of the car struck Azulay’s left leg. The court found that Cassif acted knowingly and intended to obstruct Azulay in the performance of his duties.
Azulay struck the hood of the vehicle with his hand. When Cassif got out, the argument continued. At one point, Azulay raised his finger and lightly touched Cassif’s face. In response, Cassif raised his right hand and forcefully struck the left side of Azulay’s head, causing him pain in his head and leg.
Cassif denied the charge and argued that his parliamentary immunity entitled him to drive through the area. He claimed that striking the officer with his vehicle had been accidental and that hitting him with his hand was an instinctive act of self-defense. He also raised a preliminary claim of selective enforcement.
The court rejected the defense arguments, ruling that the security forces acted lawfully and within their authority to prevent danger to life and unauthorized entry into Area A.
It found that Cassif’s parliamentary immunity allowed him to move freely on foot within the protest area but did not give him the right to endanger people or obstruct police officers by driving.
The court also found beyond a reasonable doubt that Cassif knowingly struck Azulay with his vehicle and intended to obstruct him. It ruled that striking the officer’s head went well beyond self-defense and was grossly disproportionate to what the court described as accidental contact caused by Cassif’s own movement. The court also rejected the selective-enforcement claim, finding a clear evidentiary distinction and no defect in the prosecution’s conduct.