Free Speech on Trial: The Case of Sheikh Kamal Khatib

In May 2021, Sheikh Kamal Khatib, a prominent community leader and former deputy head of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement, was arrested. As later reported by media reports, the arrest followed an Israeli government cabinet decision and recommendations from the Shin Bet intelligence agency, which accused him of incitement to terrorism and violence. The arrest was followed by a politically motivated indictment, based on limited and weak evidence, and a trial that went on for more than four years.

Courtesy of Adalah.

Context of the Case

On May 14, 2021, a large force of Israeli special police units entered the northern town of Kafr Kanna in the Galilee and surrounded Sheikh Khatib’s home to arrest him.

Testimonies collected by Adalah described the operation as resembling a military incursion. Security forces stormed the town, snipers took positions on rooftops, and police and military units were deployed throughout the streets and alleyways around Sheikh Khatib’s home. Khatib’s prior behavior did not justify this aggressive display of force, as he had consistently complied with previous police summonses for questioning. Police and military forces used live and rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades, and tear gas extensively throughout the town, resulting in dozens of injuries, including some with permanent effects.

To read Adalah’s report on the events of May 2021 in Kafr Kanna (page 15), click here.

After the raid, Adalah filed a complaint to the Police Investigations Department (Mahash). Despite numerous testimonies from injured people describing the unlawful use of force, Mahash closed the case several months later without conducting a meaningful investigation.

To read more about Adalah’s complaints to Mahash, click here.

Detention and Legal Proceedings

On May 27, 2021, the State of Israel filed an indictment against Sheikh Khatib, along with a request, approved by the Attorney General, to detain him until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. The prosecution claimed that Khatib posed a threat to the public, asserting that two Facebook posts and the statements he made during a public speech in the town of Kafr Kanna constituted support for terrorist organizations and incitement to terror and violence during the unrest of May 2021 (see below for details). The Magistrate’s Court approved the request.

Ten days later, the defense, represented by Adalah and the Meezaan Organization for Human Rights, contested Khatib’s detention in the Nazareth District Court. The defense referenced the weak evidence presented by the prosecution and the selective enforcement of detention only against Palestinian citizens of Israel until the criminal proceedings concluded. Nearly a month later, on June 20, 2021, the court overturned the arrest order and released Khatib under restrictive conditions, including a ban on internet access, conducting interviews or giving speeches, and entering Kafr Kanna for 45 days.

To read the decision of the court from June 20, 2021 [Hebrew], click here.

The Charges and Trial

Usually, such violence occurs in cases involving the gravest offenses; however, the case against Sheikh Khatib was based solely on speech. Specifically, he was indicted exclusively for three public statements he made in April and May 2021 regarding the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Israeli state’s violence against Palestinians.

First Facebook post (April 19, 2021): Sheikh Khatib condemned Israeli police for targeting Palestinian community leaders in Yaffa (Jaffa), posting images of injured Palestinians, and denouncing systematic police attacks on Palestinian activists and leadership.
Second Facebook post (April 25, 2021): Khatib drew historical and political parallels between Israeli provocations at the Al-Aqsa Mosque during the May 2021 Uprising and the 1929 al-Buraq Uprising. He argued that both uprisings were sparked by radical Jewish provocations at the mosque and caused harm to both Palestinians and Jews. He warned of the catastrophic consequences of renewed violence, recalling that the al-Buraq Uprising under the British Mandate led to the deaths of 116 Palestinians and 133 Jews, along with mass arrests and death sentences against Palestinians imposed by the British colonial authorities.
Speech (May 11, 2021): Khatib delivered a speech at an event organized by the High Follow-Up Committee for Arab Citizens in Israel, where he praised the defiance of worshippers at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in the face of provocation from the Israeli police and incursions by Israeli settlers. He commended their steadfastness and framed their presence at the site as a means of defending their religious rights and invoked Palestinian history. He connected a proud younger generation to the defense of their homeland, holy sites, and historical legacy.

Based on these statements, Sheikh Khatib was charged with incitement to violence (under Article 24(b)(2) of the Counter-Terrorism Law), incitement to terrorism (under Article 144D2(a) of the Penal Code), and identification with a terrorist organization (under Article 24(a)(1) of the Counter-Terrorism Law).

The prosecution characterized his words as dangerous, arguing that his posts established a “causal link” to the violent clashes and lynchings that occurred across Israel in May 2021. Concerning the first post, they claimed that his statements equated to praise for criminal acts and thus constituted incitement to violence.

Regarding the second post, they argued that by invoking the Arab Palestinian narrative and using the term “martyrs” (shuhada), Khatib was glorifying terrorism, even though the events he referenced occurred in 1929, decades before the State of Israel was established and the enactment of the Counter-Terrorism Law in 2016. It should be noted that the indictment’s historical description of the 1929 events was directly taken from Wikipedia and was contradicted by serious historical scholarship, including the works of prominent Israeli scholar Hillel Cohen, who criticized such accounts as inaccurate and stressed that both Palestinian and Israeli narratives recall the uprising, with each community perceiving itself as the victim. As for Khatib’s speech, the prosecution alleged that his remarks praised rockets fired from Gaza, expressed sympathy with Hamas, and encouraged violence, and framed them as incitement and identification with a terrorist organization.

The defense team, composed of Attorney Dr. Hassan Jabareen and Attorney Hadeel Abu Saleh from Adalah, along with Attorneys Ramzi Katilat and Omar Khamaisi from Meezaan, challenged the prosecution’s allegations. They argued that the statements in question were legitimate political and religious speech, reflecting common public discourse among Palestinian citizens of Israel, and did not come close to meeting the legal threshold for incitement under Israeli domestic law.

***

Sheikh Kamal Khatib testified before the court on February 5, 6, 13, and 14, 2024. Concerning the first post from April 19, 2021, Khatib stated that he saw the riots in Yaffa on the news and recognized that some of those injured during clashes with police were his friends. Through this post, he said he wanted to support them publicly, emphasizing that his goal was not to incite but to show solidarity with victims of police violence, one of whom had been hospitalized due to injuries.

For the second post, from April 25, 2021, Khatib explained that his statements during the May 2021 events were intended as a call for non-violent action in response to Israeli police incursions into the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and he placed his words within a broader historical context.

The speech on May 11, 2021, was delivered four days before Nakba Memorial Day at an event organized by the High Follow-Up Committee. Video footage shown in court demonstrated Khatib speaking to a mixed audience of men and women carrying Palestinian flags, with no references to, signs of, or symbols of Hamas. The only call to action he made was to participate in the Nakba Day march in the displaced Palestinian village of Al-Lajjun. He stated that his remarks were legitimate criticism of settler incursions into Al-Aqsa, which he viewed as desecrations of its sanctity.

Khatib stated that all of his texts were lawful expressions of political and religious opinions, unrelated to any criminal conduct. He added that responsibility for the May 2021 violence at Al-Aqsa rests with Itamar Ben-Gvir and radical settlers as the true instigators of the events.

***

Several expert witnesses testified in Sheikh Khatib’s defense, providing context regarding the legitimacy of his statements and their legal and political significance. For example:

Muhammad Barakeh (Chair of the Higher Follow-Up Committee) stated that Khatib’s remarks reflected the broader political rhetoric of the Palestinian leadership in Israel and aligned with the general positions held by the public and its representative institutions.

Dr. Nihad Ali (Head of the Department of Cultural Pluralism at Western Galilee College and lecturer at the University of Haifa) stated that the three statements attributed to Sheikh Khatib reflected the discourse of the religious-nationalist movement among Palestinian citizens of Israel concerning the Al-Aqsa Mosque. He emphasized that although this discourse differs in framing from that of secular Palestinian groups, it cannot be classified as incitement.

In the assessment, Dr. Ali noted that, “[t]he choice of wording in the three texts cited in the indictment is not sweeping or all-encompassing.” Specifically, he pointed out that the texts do not make reference “to all Jews or all right-wingers” and they “criticize police violence,” rather than the Israeli regime as a whole. He further noted that the statements emphasize “praying at Al-Aqsa” as “the best form of protecting its sanctity,” which constitutes a call for passive defense. Accordingly, Dr. Ali determined that the wording of the statements does not amount to a “proactive call to take action.”

Professor Yoni Mendel (a linguist and political scientist) provided a detailed critique of the prosecution’s translations of Khatib’s statements, pointing out various distortions and inaccuracies. He identified four major problems. First, he noted the “complete disregard for the Arab collective memory, Arab discourse, the Arab perspective, and the Arab socio-historical-political outlook,” and the “imposition of the Israeli perception and viewpoint.” Second, he highlighted that the prosecution’s “translations omit the fact that Mr. Khatib refers to Arab actions, including those involving violence, as responses to Israeli actions.”

Third, Professor Mendel observed that “certain Arabic words (such as shahid [martyr] and intifada [uprising]) are left untranslated,” which “evokes a hostile Israeli emotional reaction and erases the responses, and at times victim-centered context that Mr. Khatib intended.” In addition, he noted that “incriminating interpretations are attached to other words,” which shift their meaning into an active call for action and violence. Fourth, he emphasized that there are “several specific issues in the translation (including one omission from the speech in Kafr Kanna) that […] render the translation incapable of reliably conveying Mr. Khatib’s perspective and his references.”

Dr. Eran Tzidkiyahu (an expert on Israeli security, religious movements, and society) provided expert testimony on the escalation of violence during May 2021. He highlighted how Israeli police policies in fueling tensions, such as preventing Palestinians from sitting in East Jerusalem’s Bab al-Amud Square, contributed to tensions.

He stressed that the omission of these policies from the indictment produces “a highly biased narrative, one that contradicts even mainstream Hebrew media coverage of the events as well as leading academic research on the subject.” He concluded that, “Sheikh Khatib’s statements emphasize and draw upon the Arab-Islamic narrative and therefore cannot reasonably be understood by Arab Muslims as calls for violence.”

***

The defense team also highlighted the discriminatory and selective enforcement of Israel’s incitement laws, providing legal documentation on the May 2021 events and detailing dozens of cases where Israeli Jewish citizens incited against Palestinians but faced no prosecution.

This argument is supported by data from the Knesset Research and Information Center, which indicates that between 2018 and 2022, the police initiated 283 criminal investigations under Section 24 of the Counter-Terrorism Law. Of these, 97% targeted Arabs, 85% of whom were Israeli citizens. During the same period, only 11 investigations involved Jewish suspects. Of the 88 related indictments filed, 86 defendants (95%) were Arab and only three were Jewish. Notably, all 65 individuals convicted of incitement-to-terror offenses under Section 24 were Palestinians. Similarly, in 2023–2024, most cases initiated under the Counter-Terrorism Law focused on Palestinians.

In 2024 alone, the State Attorney’s Office approved investigations into 288 suspects for alleged incitement to terror. Of the 252 suspects whose nationality was recorded, 92% were Arab and only 8% were Jewish. That year, indictments were filed against 42 Arab defendants, with none filed against Jewish suspects.

To read the report of the Knesset research and information center covering the years 2023–2024 [Hebrew], click here.

To read the report of the Knesset research and information center covering the years 2018–2022 [Hebrew], click here.

The judge presiding over Sheikh Khatib’s trial retired on March 30, 2025, before issuing a verdict. On the final day of her three-month period to conclude pending cases, she issued a ruling on June 30, 2025, four years after the trial began, without providing any reasoning or specifying which statements or acts formed the basis for conviction. The written decision ended abruptly with the note: “The reasoning for the ruling will be sent to the parties and will be available on [the court’s online system].”

Despite the substantial evidence provided by the defense team, the judge dismissed their arguments and found Sheikh Kamal Khatib guilty of incitement to violence and terrorism, each carrying a maximum penalty of five years. Importantly, the court cleared him of the charge of affiliating with a terrorist organization.

In a surprising move, the presiding judge retired the day after issuing this unreasoned verdict. As a result, sentencing will now be handled by a different judge who did not hear the testimonies firsthand. According to Israeli law, a change of judge is only allowed in cases of force majeure; in this situation, the original judge did not complete the trial before retiring. This sequence of events significantly undermines the consistency and transparency of the judicial process.

On August 7, 2025, the defense team filed a motion to dismiss the indictments and requested an immediate hearing, citing the procedural irregularities mentioned earlier and the judge’s failure to provide a legal rationale for the ruling. They argued that these irregularities violated Khatib’s constitutional right to a fair trial and raised serious concerns about the fairness and integrity of the proceedings.

Following the motion, on August 10, the retiring judge issued a 40-page document outlining her legal reasoning for the verdict delivered on June 30, 2025, in which she rejected all of the defense team’s arguments. While acknowledging that the prosecution’s formulation of the offenses, especially in its translations of Sheikh Khatib’s statements, should have been more precise, she nonetheless concluded that these flaws were not enough to overturn the verdict. The judge also dismissed the claim of selective enforcement, finding that the defense’s evidence did not meet the required threshold of proof.

Shortly afterward, the retiring judge forwarded the motion to the President of the Nazareth District Court, referring to her verdict and reasoning. On August 11, the President transferred the motion to the Court’s Vice President, who held a hearing on the motion on October 15, 2025.

The defense argued that the trial should be dismissed under the doctrine of “abuse of process,” citing unprecedented procedural defects, including an unreasoned verdict followed by ex post facto reasoning from a retired judge. However, the request was denied. The new presiding judge ruled that the defendant had not shown concrete harm from the delayed reasoning, beyond the general claim of violated fair-trial rights, that would justify the ‘extreme remedy’ of dismissal.

Sentencing arguments are set for December 7, 2025, before the Deputy President of the Court.

To read the motion filed on August 7 to dismiss the charges [Hebrew], click here.

To read the decision from October 15 [Hebrew], click here.

Wider Implications

The indictment of Sheikh Khatib highlights the political and selective nature of prosecutions related to incitement in Israel, especially those targeting Palestinian leaders and activists. The case was based not on concrete evidence of intent or harm but on criminalizing Palestinian religious, historical, and national narratives. This reflects a broader view within the Israeli legal system that considers Palestinian political identity and history as inherently suspicious.

By adopting the prosecution’s framing, the court favored dominant Israeli Jewish narratives. For example, it described the al-Buraq Uprising solely as a massacre of Jews, ignoring the fact that the violence resulted in the deaths of both Jews and Palestinians. While criticizing certain aspects of the prosecution’s conduct, such as vague charges and poor translations, the court still prioritized the prosecution’s evidence over the defense’s expert testimony and records, thereby creating a hierarchy that prevents the defense from effectively challenging the State’s actions in criminal proceedings.

The political persecution of Sheikh Khatib is not an isolated incident; similar tactics have often been used to silence expressions of Palestinian historical memory and national identity, such as Nakba commemorations and the inclusion of Palestinian history in school curricula. In Israel, the law is increasingly weaponized to deny rights, limit political participation, and suppress the Palestinian citizens' historical narrative.

To read more about the anti-Nakba Law, click here.

***

As Professor Mendel observed, “the indictment is built on distorted translations that disregard the historical narrative and sequence of events that Mr. Khatib himself articulated… [His] narrative reflects a recognized and legitimate Arab perspective—one that is widely documented in Arab media, social networks, books, and scholarly writings.”

This narrative, rooted in history, identity, and collective memory, is being criminalized. Sheikh Kamal Khatib’s arrest, indictment, and trial were not driven by a real threat to public safety but by an attempt to suppress dissent and erase Palestinian national identity. The case shows how Israeli courts tend to favor state narratives, even when they rely on biased claims and flawed translations.

Sheikh Khatib’s case clearly shows how incitement laws are used to target Palestinians. These laws turn valid criticism, religious expressions, and historical references into criminal acts subject to prosecution.

For more information: