8 views
The Jerusalem Court of First Instance acquitted Yona Simcha Schreiber, 36, on Wednesday 26 August, after the violent assault of a French Catholic nun on Mount Zion. Judge Ofir Tishler did not question the materiality of the facts: Schreiber had pushed the nun to the ground before returning to kick her and to attack a passerby who was trying to defend her. However, the court held his criminal irresponsibility on the basis of an expert opinion that he was in a psychotic state at the time of the attack. He ordered his psychiatric hospitalization for up to six years. This decision comes at a time when churches and several organizations have been alerting Christians to attacks and harassment in Jerusalem for several years.
The aggression of the nun established by the court
The judgment delivered on Wednesday does not conclude that Jona Schreiber did not commit the aggression. On the contrary, Justice Ofir Tishler found that the evidence on file established the facts described in the indictment. The acquittal is based on the mental state of the accused at the time of the attack and not on a challenge to his involvement.
The facts date back to April 28, 2026, at approximately 5:42 p.m. The French nun was near the Cenacle and the traditional tomb of King David on Mount Zion in Jerusalem when she was attacked. The video surveillance footage, then broadcast by the Israeli police, documented much of the scene.
Schreiber approached the nun from behind before pushing her violently to the ground. He moved away for a few moments, then returned to her while she was still on the ground and kicked her. When a passerby intervened in an attempt to stop the aggression, Schreiber was also taken from him.
The nun was injured in her head and suffered dizziness. The indictment also referred to a hematoma in the face and marks on a leg.
An attack initially pursued as motivated by religion
The religious dimension was an essential element of the accusation. At the time of Schreiber’s indictment on 7 May, the Public Prosecutor’s Office had detained an assault which resulted in injuries and hostility to a group on account of its religion, as well as a second attack on the past.
According to the indictment, Schreiber identified the victim as a Christian nun with his clothes. The prosecution argued that he had then decided to attack him precisely because of this religious identity.
This circumstance had an important criminal consequence. An assault causing injury was punishable by three years ‘ imprisonment, but the maximum penalty could be doubled when the motivation of hostility towards a religious group was retained. Schreiber therefore risked imprisonment for up to six years.
The prosecutor ‘ s office had requested that he be kept in detention during the proceedings. The Israeli police themselves had announced his arrest after the attack and indicated that he was suspected of acting on grounds related to the identity of the victim.
Jona Schreiber declared criminally irresponsible
The trial finally took another direction because of psychiatric expertise. The district psychiatrist concluded that Schreiber was in a psychotic state at the time of the incident and that he did not have the capacity to fully understand the nature of his actions or prevent them from being carried out.
Justice Ofir Tishler accepted this conclusion. It therefore considered that the accused could not be held criminally responsible, even if the material facts alleged against him were established.
This distinction is important to understand the term acquittal. Schreiber was not declared innocent of aggression. The court held that he had committed it, but that he was legally irresponsible at the time of the facts because of his psychiatric condition.
The decision is based on a diagnosis of mental illness and assessment of his condition at the precise time of the attack. According to post-trial evidence, Schreiber suffered from schizophrenia and was undergoing a psychotic episode.
Up to six years of psychiatric hospitalization
The court ordered his placement in a psychiatric institution for up to six years. This period corresponds to the maximum duration related to the seriousness of the offences for which he was prosecuted.
It is therefore not an immediate release after the acquittal. Schreiber must be cared for in a psychiatric institution under duress, in accordance with the court’s decision.
However, it will depend on the applicable medical framework. His condition may be assessed by a competent psychiatric commission, which legally opens the possibility of a change in his hospitalization before the expiry of the maximum period.
The wording that he was simply « acquitted » can thus give an incomplete picture of the judgment. At the same time, the court recognized its criminal irresponsibility and ordered a custodial measure of a psychiatric nature.
The victim, a French nun working in Jerusalem
The attacked nun is French and was linked to the French Biblical and Archaeological School in Jerusalem. This institution, founded at the end of the 19th century, is an important Catholic research centre dedicated to biblical studies, archaeology and the history of the Middle East.
The aggression caused a strong emotion because of his violence, but also because of his location. Mount Zion brings together several major places for Christian and Jewish traditions. The Cenacle is associated in Christian tradition with the Last Supper, while the same architectural ensemble includes the place traditionally presented as the tomb of King David.
The visibility of religious in this part of Jerusalem is also an element of vulnerability. Their clothing allows them to be identified immediately as members of a Christian community, as was precisely the case in the indictment against Schreiber.
As a result, the case had exceeded that of mere aggression in public space. The Israeli prosecutor himself had placed the victim’s religious identity at the centre of his prosecution.
The aggressor resides in the settlement of Peduel
Jona Simcha Schreiber resides in Peduel, an Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank. This element, mentioned from the time of his arrest and indictment, contributed to the media coverage of the case.
The term « colonel » used by several media refers to this place of residence. The Israeli settlements in the West Bank are one of the main points of dispute over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and are considered illegal under international law by a large part of the international community. Israel challenges some of these legal interpretations.
However, the aggression itself did not take place in Peduel or the West Bank. It was performed on Mount Zion in Jerusalem, near the Old City.
This geographical distinction is necessary. Schreiber’s place of residence was a relevant biographical element, but the judicial record concerned an attack on a French nun in Jerusalem.
A case in a context of anti-Christian violence
Judgment comes in a broader context of concern about hostile acts against Christians in Jerusalem. Religious leaders and Christian organizations have documented in recent years insults, spitting, degradation and attacks against clergy, pilgrims and religious places.
Not all incidents are of the same severity and cannot be automatically linked. The aggression of 28 April nevertheless had a special characteristic: the prosecution had explicitly stated that the nun had been attacked because of her Christian identity.
Among other things, videos showing Christian religious targeted by spitting have fed the concerns of the churches. Ecclesiastical officials called on the Israeli authorities to strengthen the prevention and prosecution of such behaviour.
The Israeli authorities claim to guarantee religious freedom and officially condemn violence against Christian communities. In several cases, the police made arrests. The arrest of Schreiber after the attack of the nun had itself been announced by the Israeli police.
An acquittal that does not deny aggression or violence
The decision of 26 August thus raises two questions which should be distinguished. The first concerns the individual responsibility of Schreiber. The court found, on the basis of medical expertise, that a psychotic state made him criminally irresponsible at the time of the attack.
The second concerns the facts themselves and their context. On this point, the court did not dispute that Schreiber had attacked the nun. The video surveillance footage, the victim’s injuries, and the intervention of a witness had accurately documented the scene.
The indictment also retained the religious character of the motivation. The criminal liability imposed by the court precludes Schreiber’s criminal conviction, but it does not erase this qualification initially adopted by the prosecution or the circumstances of the attack.
This nuance explains why judgment can provoke very different reactions. Legally, recognizing the irresponsibility of a person with a serious psychiatric pathology is a fundamental principle of criminal law. For Christian communities, the case also remains one of the most violent episodes among the attacks reported in Jerusalem.
Judicial decision does not close debate
Schreiber’s psychiatric hospital now moves the criminal record to that of coerced medical care. The maximum period of six years corresponds to the maximum penalty he allegedly incurred in connection with the charge aggravated by the religious motive.
The question of its actual duration will depend on medical assessments and decisions taken within the framework for persons found to be criminally irresponsible. The acquittal therefore does not mean a sentence of six fixed years of hospitalization or automatic release.
For the attacked nun and the Christian leaders in Jerusalem, however, the stakes go beyond the individual fate of her aggressor. The case of Mount Zion echoes the concerns expressed about the safety of religious identifiable by their clothes and the proliferation of hostile behaviour against them.
Three months after the attack on 28 April, the court has now decided the criminal liability of Jona Schreiber. The facts remain established: a French nun was pushed to the ground and then beaten while lying there, and the prosecution found that she had been chosen because of her religious identity. The decision of 26 August now leaves open the broader question of the response to hostile acts against Christian communities in Jerusalem.
