Moreover, in accordance with the second alternative of the provision of section 329(a), we are dealing with an attempted sabotage with aggravated intent, and therefore proof is also required that the defendant acted with the aim of completing the offense.
- From the totality of the circumstances presented, it was proven that the defendant was aware that the Molotov cocktails were thrown in a residential neighborhood, at residential houses where people slept the night, and that he at least turned a blind eye to this fact, and that he threw the Molotov cocktails with the intention of harming people, and that he acted with the aim of completing the offense.
The defendant's conduct testifies to his actions and the intention that underpinned them. The defendant threw Molotov cocktails inside a residential neighborhood and at residential buildings. There is no escaping the conclusion that the defendant sought to cause serious injury, and the defendant is presumed to have been aware of the physical nature of his actions, and of the result that may naturally arise from these acts (Criminal Appeal 6931/16 State of Israel v. Ahmad Bargiti, para. 19 (June 5, 2018). Moreover, the circumstances of the incident show that the defendant acted with the aim of completing the offense. The defendant threw three Molotov cocktails at various targets. The bottle throwing took place in the middle of the night, while people were sleeping in their homes, unaware of the danger and unable to extinguish the spreading fire. The defendant saw with his own eyes the immediate result of his actions - the fire that was burning in the various locations, but chose to leave the scene without calling for help.
The defendant's special intention can also be proven by means of the expectation rule, since even if the defendant did not want to achieve the result of causing serious injury to the victims, he should have had a high probability expectation that throwing Molotov cocktails in a residential neighborhood at three homes in the middle of the night would cause this result. The defendant himself chose to hold on to the right to remain silent, and did not shed light on the circumstances of the act. Had the defendant had a different intention, he should have testified about it, but he did not do so, thus strengthening the impression of an intention to cause such an outcome (see, inter alia, in Criminal Appeal 71675-08-24 Sarhan v. State of Israel, para. 32 (June 22, 2025) (Sarhan case).