Sommer noted: "... I do not remember, except for a referral from Ayelet, any request from the minister's office or the minister himself" (Prov. p. 153, s. 29).
Even if it can be argued that Azoulay and Ben-Zaken had a retrospective interest in "distancing" Ben-Eliezer and "accepting responsibility" for organizing the meeting (and this assumption is not self-evident), it cannot be said that Kamir or Sommer had any interest in "cleaning" Ben-Eliezer, and certainly not even by the prosecution.
- Thus, the four "bridesmaids" who gave testimonies about the meeting gave a similar description that does not include clear evidence of Ben-Eliezer's involvement, other than that Discount Because Azoulay is acting on his behalf, assuming that as I have made clear – and in light of the independent axis "Ben-Zaken – Azoulay" – it is not enough.
- Now, two additional data of alleged evidentiary significance must be examined:
The first - An email sent on December 1, 2010 at 16:29 from Kamir's secretary, Ms. Esti Cassharo, to Sommer, in which Casaro noted that Ben-Eliezer had asked Kamir to promote a meeting between Davidson (the CEO) and Ben-Zaken when Davidson visited Israel. Casharo also referred to the drilling rights of the oil company, and asked that Sommer inform Kamir if a meeting had been arranged so that he could update Ben-Eliezer on the matter (P/44). There is no dispute that this email was sent by Kasharo while Ben-Eliezer was in a meeting with Noble Energy representatives. The obvious conclusion seems clear – Azoulay, as she testified, was the one who spoke with Kamir and he updated his secretary, who sent the email in the midst of Ben-Eliezer's meeting with Noble Energy representatives. Since the prosecution did not summon Kasharo to testify, we are left with the obvious assumption that what she wrote in the email according to which Ben-Eliezer was behind the organization of the meeting stems from Kamir's initial assumption that this is the way things are, an assumption based on the "natural" identification between Azoulay's actions and Ben-Eliezer's wishes. In this regard, we may refer to the words of Kamir, who confirmed in his statement that he was the one who contacted Casharo, and asked her to update Sommer about the planned meeting (P/253 S. 100). But it is clear that insofar as Ben-Eliezer was interested in promoting a meeting for Ben-Zaken or for the defendant, he could have raised the matter during his meeting with Sommer (which took place at the same time anyway) and he should not have informed Azoulay, who would inform Kamir, that he would inform Casaro, that he would inform Sommer that he would hold a conference call with Ben-Zaken and Azoulay. Aside from the fact that Casharo's remarks cannot be seen as evidence of the truth of their content, it seems that they are based on Kamir's erroneous assumption, as he himself made clear in his statement to the police quoted above and submitted with consent.