According to the indictment, the defendant contacted Hamas operatives from Gaza, who asked him to carry out an attack in Israel. The defendant decided to carry out an attack against soldiers not under Hamas’s direction but independently, and took preparatory actions for this purpose. The second defendant in the case, Muhammad Mahamid, was sentenced to 9 years in prison.
The Haifa District Prosecutor’s Office, through Adv. Yaniv Zohar, referred to the sentence of the defendant Mahamid and stated that this sentence should be learned from for the severity in the case of Muhammad Musallach, and petitioned for a sentencing range of 13 to 17 years in prison, taking into account the defendant’s criminal record and the fact that he had previously received suspended sentences.
The prosecution emphasized the severity of the defendant’s actions and highlighted the gravity of his role in the planning, as he was the one who contacted Hamas operatives and planned to carry out an attack against IDF soldiers.
The court accepted the prosecution’s position and noted that the sentence in the case of the defendant Mahamid should serve as a central benchmark in sentencing the defendant Musallach. It was further determined that there is a significant difference in the nature of the actions performed by each of the defendants, and that the defendant Musallach’s role is considerably more severe. This is because he was the one who initiated contact, on an ideological basis, with operatives of the Hamas organization, agreed to their request to carry out an attack within the State of Israel, and actively worked to advance and implement the plan. In addition, the court referred to the defendant’s criminal record, which includes convictions for domestic violence offenses as well as assaulting police officers.
The court noted that the defendant poses a high risk to the public. It was further emphasized that as a result of the commission of the offenses, central social values were harmed, primarily the preservation of the security of the state and its residents. In addition, the court stressed the need for general deterrence and deterrence of the defendant himself, while sending a clear and unequivocal message to anyone considering committing acts that could harm the security of the state – that their sentence will be actual imprisonment behind bars for a significant period.
Related Topics
