This issue was recently answered in Criminal Appeal 5922/22 Kozlov v. State of Israel (August 13, 2023). In the same matter, it was held that although section 305 was not changed in the framework of the reform of the offenses of manslaughter, the objective element required for a conviction for the offense of attempted murder is no longer an intention first, but only an intention. Among the reasons underlying this determination, it was noted that leaving the requirement to prove intent first would create a lack of logic on the punitive level (for more information, see: ibid., at paragraphs 21-24; Boaz Sanjaro, Israeli Penal Law Review 241 (2020))."
In the matter of intent, it determines Section 20(a)(1) to the Penal Law that it means "In order to produce the same results", and present The subjective nature of the intention was determined In section 20(b) The Penal Law shall substitute an intention according to which "Foreseeing the occurrence of the results, as a near possibility, is tantamount to a goal for German.".
On the evidentiary level, and in view of the evidentiary difficulty of the subjective characteristics in the requirement of intention, the "presumption of intent" was developed in case law, according to which the secrets of a person's heart must be examined according to the nature and nature of his actions. It is presumed that a person who acts out of free will because he intends the natural consequences of his actions. This is a factual-evidentiary presumption that can be contradicted and its purpose is to assist in examining the existence of the mental element.
The Supreme Court's rulings recognized the power of this presumption as well as the offense of attempted murder, when an act was committed that could, by its nature and nature, cause a fatal result, and for reasons not dependent on the defendant, this result was avoided (Criminal Appeal 8577/22 Yafimov v. State of Israel, para. 31 (April 21, 2024); Criminal Appeal 10025/16 Anonymous v. State of Israel, para. 23 (August 10, 2017); Criminal Appeal 690/10 Abu Thia v. State of Israel, para. 17 (August 6, 2013)). to the extent that the defendant fails to contradict this presumption by bringing evidence or by giving an explanation that raises reasonable doubt as to his intention; Thus, this presumption becomes absolute, and he is held to have the intention of bringing about the death of the victim.