In the offense of conspiracy to possess a drug with the intention of distributing it - an offense under Section 841(a)(1) together with Section 846 of the American Code. It was ruled that the Israeli "counterpart" of this offense is not the offense of conspiracy to commit a crime, the penalty of which is reduced (section 499 of the Penal Law), but rather the offense of making another transaction in the drug - an offense under section 13 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance [New Version], the maximum penalty of which is 20 years in prison (see ibid., at p. 436). These things, it seems, speak for themselves.
It therefore follows that in the issue before us, a decision on extradition, which meets all the other parameters examined above, does not infringe the constitutional right to an extent that exceeds what is required.
- In conclusion - My conclusion is that in law the trial court declared the appellant extraditable to the United States. Thus, the recognition of the natural prerogative given in the circumstances of the case requires the United States to defend itself against those who rise up against it from outside. This is required by the proper cooperation between the countries. This is what the interest of the Israeli public requires, and so does the proper balance between it and the rights of the appellant. Thus, Israel asked the United States to act in similar circumstances. This is how we will act in the appellant.
I would therefore suggest to my colleagues that we dismiss the appeal.
Vice President M. Cheshin
I agree with the judgment of my colleague Justice Levy.
Everyone knows that the rigid and formal tests that characterized the legal systems in the days ago are becoming substantive and flexible tests that adapt themselves to the circumstances of each and every case, or at least to the circumstances of different types of cases. Through the lens of this quiet development - a development that in turn is a reflection of social life in our world: no more rigid manners, no more people embalmed in a hat-tie-bra-a man-jacket, etc. - we must examine the issue of the appellant 's extradition to the United States. From a comprehensive and comprehensive view, there is no clear doubt in my heart that the United States has a moral right to judge the appellant. The United States is the country that was harmed by the bad acts that were committed - those acts that gave birth to the conspiracy offense attributed to the appellant - and it is only right and correct that it will be the United States that will judge him and sentence him (if he is found guilty). As for Israel, its place and status in the overall system of indictment is nothing but a marginal place and status.