Within the framework of these parameters, it is possible to examine the length of the relationship period; the circumstances in which it was concocted; its degree of intensity; depth; The planes on which he extended, and so on. To a large extent, there is a reciprocal relationship between the various parameters, and there is no room to examine each parameter on its own. Thus, for example, it can be said that a period of three years is not long enough to reflect a deep and courageous friendship, but this statement is misplaced, when, for example, we are dealing with a relationship that has been forged between two members of the same platoon since the day they were drafted into the IDF. In the same way, the degree of intensity of the relationship cannot be considered as a single parameter, since there are intense acquaintances, for example, working together, which do not create a deep and courageous friendship. We are therefore dealing with an examination that combines all the parameters and examines the interactions between them.
- In this case, it is a relatively short relationship (about three years until the date of the transfer of the money), which is not the result of a shared childhood, shared experiences, a similar way of life, or an unusual event that occurred and connected the two forever. The two, who have been separated for 24 years, did not serve together in the army, never worked in the same place, did not have mutual friends, did not spend time together (except for a few meals or as part of a birthday event for Ben-Eliezer - P/1A, p. 22, s. 36), and it was not possible to point to joint family experiences that they shared. The connection was created against the background of Ben-Eliezer's official work, and the continuation of the relationship was not described as including extraordinary experiences, apart from meaningful conversations for the defendant during a period of deliberation in his personal life (the significance of which I do not take lightly).
It appears from the testimonies that Ben-Eliezer and the defendant met from time to time, but not in a very intensive manner, and it seems to me that even the testimonies that were presented in this context, or rather – the testimonies that were not presented – justify rejecting the defense's description of the nature of the relationship.