For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that defendants 1 and 4 filed a counterclaim with respect to plaintiffs 1-2, which deals with a defamation suit. However, against the background of my decision of June 16, 2025, defendants 1 and 4 announced that they do not stand by the counterclaim in this matter (paragraph 212 of their summaries). In light of this, there is no need to address the arguments included in the counterclaim.
Defendant 2's Arguments, Moving the Hearing Place Zvika Mualem
Mualem initially stated that he did not represent plaintiffs 2-1. As for the other plaintiffs, Mualem claimed that he represented them in signing the contracts and that he explained to each of them the nature of the transaction, including with regard to the restitution clause. He also explained to the purchasers that the Administrator is entitled not to extend the lease agreements and to demand the return of the land parcels, while providing compensation in accordance with his instructions and instructions.
According to the prosecutor, plaintiffs 3-7 came to his office as a group, against the background of their prior acquaintance with each other. The "living spirit" that led their conduct was through Plaintiff 4, Mr. Ariel Cohen, an attorney by profession. Transfer of Hearing Place Cohen spoke at length with Moalem regarding the termination of the lease period of the lands, and even consulted with other lawyers by telephone while he was in the office of the Moalem Hearing Place. All of this goes to the plaintiffs' 3-7 signature on the contracts. At the end of the consultations, Awa recommended that Cohen move the venue for the hearing to the rest of his fellow plaintiffs to sign the agreements despite the provision of clause 15 of the lease contract. For the sake of completeness, it should be said that in the reply the plaintiffs denied that the transfer of the venue of the Cohen hearing led to the signing of the transactions on their behalf, while claiming that he "deals only in the field of torts (personal injury), and there is no dispute with the field of real estate and real estate" (paragraph 53 of the reply of January 8, 2020; See also: ibid., para. 61; Plaintiffs 3-7 claimed that the representative of the group was Mr. Elia Shimoni - paragraph 71 of the reply).