I agree that a "complete reading" leads us to the towers, but this call leads us clearly and unequivocally – not only "to some extent" – to the interpretation that entitles the growers to the compensation they claim.
Thus far – the meaning of the contract within itself.
- If this is the case in the contract itself, all the more so in external evidence that was submitted and was placed before the court at the time of the interpretation of the contract. The growers presented before the court many affidavits attesting to the subjective purpose of the contract and the intentions of the parties at the time of its conclusion, and all of these declarants – including those who represented the state in the negotiations – unequivocally stated that the compensation to the farmers – including the potato growers – was given to them for the cancellation of the quotas; thus, and for no other reason. My colleague Justice found a review of these affidavits in paragraphs 29 to 34 of his opinion, and his unequivocal conclusion was that the evidence supported the arguments of the growers. That's also my opinion.
- And this is the question at the heart of the disagreement between the parties: is the grant to potato growers intended to compensate them for the damage caused to them as a result of the opening of the market in Israel for agricultural products from the Palestinian Authority – and this is the state's claim – or is the grant intended to compensate the growers for the cancellation of production quotas, as the growers claim? In support of their claim, the growers submitted affidavits to the court and letters written by those involved in the process of concluding the contract on behalf of both parties, and the state did not cross-examine either the declarants or the authors. All of these declarants and writers informed us in unequivocal language that the compensation to the growers – compensation in the sum of NIS 1,700 per dunam of quota – was given for the cancellation of the quotas, and that the question of imports from the autonomy was only marginal. The former Minister of Finance, Mr. Beige Shochat, wrote:
In my understanding, the purpose at the basis of the agreement with you of November 24, 1994 was indeed to compensate the various growers, including the potato growers, for the cancellation of their quotas.