During his interrogation, the transfer of Mualem's hearing location was confronted with the content of the "Mualem letters", without the Shin Bet petitioning the plaintiffs to submit them (p. 2597, paras. 7-20). In their summaries, the plaintiffs argued that the versions he provided were transferred to a place of discussion in relation to these letters were inconsistent in themselves (paragraph 70 of the summaries). In my opinion, the fact that the plaintiffs' counsel acted to present the letters for the first time to Mualem's place of hearing during his interrogation, without submitting a prior request to submit them in advance, is inappropriate. There is no room for it to be constructed from the answers of a concealed discussion, which were given by surprise without him remembering and in any case without checking whether the letters came out of his hands. In any case, this is a tendentious presentation of the versions that were given by a concealed discussion and not necessarily a contradiction between them.
I did not find that the plaintiffs' reasoning in paragraphs 70k-71 of their summaries could change my decision of May 17, 2024, especially in view of the fact that there is no dispute that these letters are not related to the land that is the subject of the lawsuit. The entire purpose of the plaintiffs' request to submit the letters is intended to understand the jug of the transfer of a place of hearing from Mualem and to draw the conclusion that he did not inform plaintiffs 3-7 about clause 15 prior to the signing of the contracts. However, it should not be inferred from letters that were written, insofar as they were written, in different circumstances in relation to other lands, that in our case, the transfer of the venue of the hearing did not inform plaintiffs 3-7 about clause 15 of the lease contract. I do not need possible interpretations of other letters where I have found it factually to give credence to the version of a concealed discussion on the matter.