Frija trial begins: IDF reservist faces manslaughter charges in mistaken shooting

There will be hearings on January 19 and 26 and February 2 to resolve all pre-trial evidence discovery issues and any pre-trial motions to try to dismiss the case.

The first witness will be called on March 9, and there are several other court days scheduled in March for questioning witnesses.

Frija killed Kestelman when both of them intervened in a Palestinian terrorist shooting attack at a bus stop near Jerusalem’s Givat Shaul neighborhood.

Kestelman drew his licensed firearm and shot at the attackers, and Frija also separately shot at the attackers.

However, in the chaotic aftermath, Frija mistakenly identified Kestelman as an additional attacker and fatally shot him. In November 2024, the IDF prosecution filed an indictment against Frija in the military courts for shooting Kestelman, despite Kestelman having dropped his gun and raising his hand to plead for his life.

Both before and after the indictment, the sides engaged in extensive negotiations aimed at reaching a plea deal, with Frija’s defense team reportedly prepared to plead guilty to a reduced charge of negligent homicide instead of manslaughter.

Offir, however, insisted on the manslaughter charge, and so the case is going to trial.

In security camera footage of the incident, Kestelman can be seen running with his gun and shooting at the attackers. Next, Frija aims at Kestelman.

Kestelman kneels, raises his arms as a sign of surrender, and opens his shirt before Frija shoots him.

The indictment said that another soldier with Frija told him not to fire at Kestelman and that Kestelman had taken all objective measures to show he was surrendering, unarmed, and no imminent threat. In other words, Frija might not have had the right to shoot him even if he had been one of the Palestinian terrorists.

Frija was arrested a few days later, on December 4, but was then freed to house arrest by the IDF court on December 5 for several weeks.

Controversially, Frija was allowed to go free from November 30 to December 4; it was unclear at the time whether he would be prosecuted and under what charge, with him claiming he believed Kestelman was a terrorist who still presented a danger, despite evidence on the scene to counter his defense.

To date, public statements from top defense officials have not condemned him to anywhere near the same degree as they condemned “Hebron Shooter” Elor Azaria, who, in 2015, shot and killed a neutralized Palestinian who was lying on the ground.

Frija and another soldier involved were eventually questioned under caution.

Initially, the defense establishment – excluding law enforcement – the political establishment, and the police units who handled the crime scene and initial investigation all seemed to have sympathy for Frija. This was when the post-October 7 fury was at its highest, and there was little public patience for soldiers showing restraint against Palestinians or even mistakenly killing Israelis, thinking they were Palestinians.

Only a few weeks later, three unarmed Israeli hostages were killed in Gaza by soldiers who thought they were Palestinian terrorists, with probes into the incident being controversially closed with no charges. In fact, a complaint was even filed by Kestelman’s family with the Police Investigations Department (PID) to probe and prosecute the police involved for allegedly obstructing the investigation into Frija due to their sympathy for him.

The PID closed the case, triggering a complex series of legal moves that culminated in a recent decision by the High Court of Justice ruling requiring Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara, or other prosecutors, to decide by mid-February whether to endorse the PID’s decision or accept Kestelman’s appeal and compel the PID to prosecute the police involved.

Regardless of how Baharav-Miara rules, the police made a number of errors in their handling of the case, which will aid Frija in any trial.

Frija also has the support of various soldiers who later came forward to defend his understanding of the rules of engagement, including firing on an unarmed Palestinian terrorist in certain circumstances, such as if he was fleeing an attack.

Moreover, Frija’s lawyers have presented evidence that he was in a state of post-traumatic stress disorder after having served in Gaza for much of the preceding month, when he shot Kestelman.

All of these factors could have given Offir a basis to agree to a lenient plea deal, which would likely have been accepted by the political echelon and by current public sentiment, who are still heavily impacted by the anger and insecurity following October 7.

Offir’s decision to move forward with the case after only 41 days, which will likely have the support of much of the legal community, could put him at odds with the political echelon and much of the public, especially as the trial plays out and receives media coverage.

Until now, Offir has been praised by Defense Minister Israel Katz and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, following his work as Defense Ministry legal adviser to promote Jewish settlement in the West Bank and on some other issues.

There are questions about whether the Frija case may represent a break between him and them.

On December 17, The Jerusalem Post correctly reported that Offir was not on the verge of canceling the Sde Teiman indictments, given that three weeks later, they have not been canceled.

He may still ultimately cancel the indictments or seek another way to keep them alive, either by reducing the charges or by emphasizing different aspects of the cases’ various controversial issues.

But if he is thinking about maintaining the Sde Teiman indictments, his decision to go forward against Frija could be a trial balloon.