In the margins of this remarks, we will note that the fact that various elements (including ministers, directors general and other political elements) stand on their feet, and support the appellants in order to justify mistakes they made, does not make these mistakes justified and appropriate. This is especially so when it is done instead of supporting the state that seeks to correct the distortion that they themselves have committed.
These remarks, which the state hurled at those who held very senior positions at the time of the conclusion of the contract with the growers – without seeing fit to investigate their statements – are grave and outrageous. They imply doubting the good faith, integrity and purity of the declarants' considerations, without the slightest evidence to support this. These words are in addition to another comment by the state in its summaries. Referring to the appellants' claim – which was backed up by concrete evidence – that the contractual drafters knew that the growers were not expected to suffer damage from Palestinian imports, the state writes:
If not, and the document – as the appellants claim – was prepared when its editors knew that no damage would be caused, then there is certainly no justification for following it. Such a document, which expresses a decision that, at the very least, is erroneous or distorted, has no reason to continue to carry it out.
In these remarks, too, the state went so far as to implicitly cast aspersions on those who served in senior positions and acted on its behalf, because they acted out of extraneous considerations. Needless to say, according to its claim that the decision to enter into a contract with the growers was "at least erroneous or distorted," the state did not bring the slightest bit of evidence. It should also be noted that this argument was inconsistent with the 'official' line of defense chosen by the State, according to which it is a valid and proper contract in itself, which, according to its content, supports its position, and alternatively – a contract from which it can be released due to the falsity of the basic assumption on which it is based (and not because it is an inherently invalid contract)" (paragraph 34)