As to the question of applicability: the acts attributed to the appellant establish applicability to both Israeli and United States laws. The offenses for which the United States seeks to prosecute him allow, by their very nature and in accordance with the principles of law there, to extend the application of the laws of this country to acts committed outside its territory. This is not the perception of the United States
Only. Had the situation been reversed - a connection that was linked in the United States to the import of drugs into Israel - the basic concept of Israeli law would also be in favor of extending its application outside the territory. Israeli law, therefore, views the question of extraterritorial application in this case as eye to eye with American law. As noted above, this concept is also clearly expressed in the extradition treaty between the states.
The two countries maintain a territorial connection to the acts in question: Israel by virtue of the fact that the relationship, as claimed, was completed here (a narrow territorial connection), and the United States on the basis that its influence has taken shape in its territory (a broad territorial connection). At the same time, the acts are connected to the Israeli system by virtue of the appellant's being an Israeli citizen and resident, and to the American system by virtue of the fact that the victims are the American public and the vital interests of that country. Both countries have an interest in bringing to justice those suspected of committing drug offenses. Since it is clear that the two States will not be able to apply their laws to the appellant together (section 2b(a)(4) of the Extradition Law; section 6(1) of the Extradition Convention), the question arises to which of them has preferential applicability. The truth is, the appellant is an Israeli. The midfielder was tied up in Israel. However, as I have explained, the act of connection, in essence, requires a broad examination of the place where the plan was made, but also the chain of actions that emerged from its implementation. The main thing, in my opinion, is that the place where the connection was intended to be realized, and even actually realized, is the United States. His victims by force are Americans. Public order in the United States is the main victim of this connection. The United States bears mainly the social and economic costs involved in dealing with it. It was the American law enforcement authorities who initiated comprehensive, cross-state investigative and policing measures to expose him.