The most natural thing for me would have been to defend Supreme Court Judge Khaled Kabub. The only Arab judge, who worked his way up on his own and is considered skilled and competent. It’s also clear that some of the attacks against him come from right-wing figures who don’t like his background—people like Shlomo Karai, Orit Strook, and Yitzhak Kroizer.
Substantively, some of the criticism is unfair, like the claim that he released an Arab who raped a Jewish woman because there was no component of “significant violence” in the way the rape was carried out. As many have already shown, this was a half-truth worse than a lie. The legal precedent in Israel is that when a judge considers detention until the end of proceedings, they must always consider whether a reasonable alternative exists. Kabub ordered such an examination, and the accused ultimately remained in custody.
The latest case that sparked a storm of criticism was full of spins. It was claimed that he sought to ease the detention conditions of an Arab accused of manufacturing and possessing weapons (not a terrorist from Nuhba), because his partners were allegedly released as part of a hostage release deal. This distorted reality. The accused was supposed to be released to house arrest with electronic monitoring even before October 7, but in the end, he wasn’t released. When he appeared before Kabub, he asked the prosecution representatives why they opposed this alternative, since all five of his alleged partners were released, whether in the deal or separately—a perfectly legitimate question.
Avishai Greenzaig published several important reports on “Kan” about how the judge’s children advanced their businesses through their respected father, and how the judge either turned a blind eye or assisted. More seriously, Kabub “was not precise” in his responses to journalistic inquiries and even to the Judges’ Complaints Commissioner. These are serious failings, but not close to the level warranting removal. Strook and Kroizer, who demand the judge’s head on the Judicial Selection Committee, would not hesitate for a second if he were a Jewish judge living in a settlement.
The most natural thing would have been to defend him, but I cannot.
Previously, we published an investigation showing how businessman Amir Bramly attempted to bribe Judge Kabub. We proved envelopes of cash were delivered to the judge’s son’s office. We showed intermediary correspondence claiming the judge was aware of conversations and meetings. Bramly himself met the judge’s son and discussed a joint business. Kabub and his son denied it all, claiming forgery and extortion, and filed a police complaint. Bramly essentially admitted to attempted extortion. A straightforward case, right? So how has more than three years passed and no indictment has been filed? What does the system have to hide?
Some attacks on Kabub come from right-wing figures who dislike his background, and the most natural thing would have been to defend him—but I cannot.
In the months before the investigation was published, I spoke with many senior law enforcement officials, almost pleading with them to investigate properly. I feared tarnishing a respected judge’s reputation based on an extortion attempt by someone convicted of serious fraud. The law enforcement system revealed its full disgrace: a slow, heavy, pathetic, and fearful investigation. The intermediary and the judge’s son lost or destroyed their phones. For many pieces of evidence, the police either didn’t pursue them or arrived far too late.
Before publishing the investigation, I met Kabub’s lawyer. “Wait to publish until Kabub is appointed,” the lawyer suggested. I thought then—and even more so today—there was no better approach. A proper investigation at that point would have yielded one of two outcomes: either Kabub wouldn’t be appointed to the Supreme Court, or he would be appointed after we knew much more about his dealings with his children.