'Deserves to die': Court charges man with incitement to kill Netanyahu, coalition figures

Raz Weinberger was charged after prosecutors linked him to a series of posts on X that allegedly encouraged killings and other violence. The charges are 10 offenses of incitement to terrorism and 18 offenses of incitement to violence. Some posts support both types of charges.

The alleged statements targeted a wide group. One post said Benjamin Netanyahu deserved death. Another allegedly called for Netanyahu, his wife, and her two sons to be burned alive. Other posts allegedly called for ministers, Knesset members, and government supporters to be killed, beheaded, or subjected to sexual violence.

The indictment covers 21 posts published between September 10 and October 19, before the election for the 26th Knesset. Prosecutors argue that the repeated language created a real possibility of terrorism or violence. Weinberger was arrested on October 23 and prosecutors seek his continued detention.

Incitement to terrorism or violence generally means encouraging, supporting, or urging violent acts in a way that may help provoke them. It differs from an angry political opinion because criticism can condemn leaders or policies without directing people to harm anyone. The article does not set out every legal requirement, but prosecutors allege these posts crossed that line.

The examples were direct and personal. Weinberger allegedly wrote that Netanyahu deserved death and called for Netanyahu, his wife, and her two sons to be burned alive. Other posts allegedly sought the killing or beheading of politicians and violence against a lawmaker.

The key issue is the possible real-world effect. Prosecutors said the posts could lead to terrorism or violence, even though the account had about 40 followers. Weinberger reportedly acknowledged that his posts could influence people to take the law into their own hands, while saying he hoped they had not.

The indictment lists 21 posts published from September 10 through October 19. Those posts generated 28 alleged offenses: 10 counts of incitement to terrorism and 18 counts of incitement to violence. Some individual posts form the basis for both kinds of charges, so the offense total is higher than the post total.

The account itself was small. It had about 40 followers, according to the indictment. The listed view counts for replies ranged from 23 to 283. This means some posts were viewed far beyond the number of followers, although the article does not identify how many people acted on them.

The posts were publicly accessible on X. Prosecutors rely on that openness, along with the content, repetition, and circumstances, to argue that the messages created a real possibility of terrorism or violence. The alleged pattern continued over more than a month.

Prosecutors seek to keep Weinberger in custody until the proceedings end because they say the posts present an ongoing danger. Their argument has two parts: he might carry out violence himself, or his messages might encourage others to do so. They describe the posts as repeated, severe, and part of a sustained pattern.

The detention request cites several facts. Weinberger allegedly published 21 posts, acknowledged writing them in five police interviews, and admitted they could influence people to take the law into their own hands. Prosecutors also say he had firearm training and possessed a firearm until recently, increasing concern about his ability to act.

The prosecution says the danger did not disappear when the election ended. Political tensions could continue while a government was being formed. Weinberger has no criminal record, and his lawyer sought an alternative to detention, but prosecutors argue that release would not sufficiently prevent further posts or possible violence.

Public access matters because a post is not confined to the account holder’s followers. Anyone who can reach the account may read, share, or react to its messages. The article does not say that anyone acted on Weinberger’s posts, but prosecutors argue that the public nature of the messages created a real possibility of violence.

The account had about 40 followers, yet the view counts for the replies ranged from 23 to 283. That gap shows how posts could reach more people than the follower count suggests. The alleged messages also named public figures and government supporters, making them direct calls aimed at identifiable targets.

Prosecutors therefore focus on reach together with content and circumstances. They say repeated calls to kill, burn, or attack people could influence others, even without a large established audience. Weinberger reportedly acknowledged that possibility during questioning, while saying he hoped no one had been influenced.

An alternative to detention could allow Weinberger to remain outside jail under conditions set by the court. His lawyer sought such a release and cited his reserve military service, police volunteer work, and the account’s limited reach. The article does not name a specific alternative or list proposed conditions.

House arrest is one possible arrangement, but prosecutors say it would not solve the alleged communication risk. They argue that Weinberger could access the internet through a phone, computer, or another available device. That could allow him to publish more posts while remaining at home.

The disagreement concerns whether restrictions can prevent further alleged incitement. Weinberger’s lawyer emphasized that he had not acted on his statements. Prosecutors emphasized the number and severity of the posts, his alleged firearm background, and continuing political tensions. The court must consider these competing claims in deciding detention.

A democratic legal system must protect political expression because public criticism is central to elections and government accountability. At the same time, it has a duty to protect people when speech becomes a serious call for violence. The article presents this balance through charges based on alleged threats, not merely opposition to a government or politician.

The alleged posts named specific people and called for death, burning, beheading, or sexual violence. Prosecutors say the content, repetition, public access, and circumstances created a real possibility of terrorism or violence. The defense points to the account’s limited reach and says Weinberger did not act on the statements.

The continuing legal process will test those competing concerns in this case. Weinberger has no criminal record, but prosecutors cite his alleged firearm training and recent possession. They also say political tensions could continue after the election, making prevention important while the court considers detention and the charges.