Counsel for the defendant referred to the provision of section 37 of the Counter-Terrorism Law, and argued that the accuser had the burden of proving positively that the defendant acted out of a nationalist motive, and that this was the sole or dominant motive underlying his activity. He also referred to section 2(a)(2) of the Counter-Terrorism Law and claimed that there was no indication that the defendant sought to cause fear in the general public or to harm government institutions. Therefore, it was argued that the elements of the offense do not exist in this case.
- As to the fifth charge, counsel for the defendant argued that there were substantial gaps between the guards' testimonies and that there was a lack of clarity in their testimony, so that it was impossible to establish that the defendant assaulted a guard while a routine action was being taken against him. In particular, counsel for the defendant complained that the guards were unable to explain the source of the injuries to the defendant's face, and did not rule out the possibility that one of the guards had caused him injury. Therefore, it is not possible to rule out the possibility that the defendant and the prison guard were injured during a violent takeover by a number of prison guards, and therefore the offense of assaulting a public servant cannot be attributed to him.
Discussion and Decision
- The facts of the indictment attribute to the defendant a series of preparatory acts and the throwing of Molotov cocktails at three residential houses in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood for ideologically nationalist motives; a post office in the Geula neighborhood of Jerusalem; Bank Leumi branch in Jerusalem's Mea Shearim neighborhood; Mercantile Bank branch on Hagai Street in Jerusalem; and the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court. The defendant is also accused of assaulting a prison guard during his detention in a waiting cell in the Jerusalem detention center. The defendant denies any involvement in the acts. The parties' disputes will be examined in light of the parties' arguments and the evidentiary basis that was presented.
Security camera videos
- On behalf of the accuser, security camera footage was submitted, which included continuous documentation of the walking route of the Molotov cocktail throwing act at each of the scenes, of the execution of the throwing act, and of the escape from the scene. In court, police officers Alon Adler, Tiran Saidoff, Nissim Ronen Hadad and Reem Ben Haim, who are in charge of mapping the security cameras and downloading the videos, testified in court (in the minutes of the hearing of October 13, 2024, and also see Download and View Report - P/15; Viewing Reports - P/16, P/17, P/22, P/23, P/24, ; P/18 Maps - P/19 - P/21, P/25; Memorandum P/26; Reports of visits to the scene P/27, P/28, P/28B). I find their explanations of how to map the relevant security cameras and download the original security camera footage - satisfactory, and get the impression that the way the original videos were collected is satisfactory. Beyond that, I watched the original raw footage taken from the security cameras - and got the impression that it was faithful, complete and unedited.
At the same time, edited videos were submitted on behalf of the accuser, for ease of viewing and streamlining, in which the sequence of relevant documentation from the various security cameras was compiled. In the absence of concern about the reliability of the original raw material presented to the court, the submission of the edited videos alongside the original raw material meets the best evidence, and does not impair the authenticity of the documentation. The sequence of footage from the security camera footage of each of these events will be called "Jarrah's Speech Video", "Postal Video", "Bank Leumi Video", "Mercantile Bank Video" and "Court Video".