The amendment did not sufficiently take into account, and in any case, did not anticipate the reality of criminal life; this was especially evident in the context of the extradition relations with the United States, where quite a few Israelis have lived for long periods. Not only was Israel found guilty of violating the extradition treaty with the United States in the legal sense, but the solution that was given, prosecuting Israel, was only practical in some cases where enforcement was required. Indeed, in theory, it was possible to prosecute in Israel those who committed offenses in the United States and fled here. In practice, however, the numerous expenses involved in this process and the difficulties accumulated, including the inability to compel witnesses to testify, made it practically impossible to prosecute such a case in each and every case. Naturally, a situation was created in which Israeli citizens, including veteran immigrants, could commit offenses in the United States and escape the fear of the law by fleeing to Israel shortly after the offense was committed. Israel did not want this, and the United States did not want it, which itself continued to extradite to Israel in accordance with its obligations under the Treaty; The reciprocity, which is a necessary and essential institution in extradition relations, which my colleague Justice Levy insisted on, was not preserved. For example, in 1981, Israel held talks with then-Secretary of State Alexander Hague regarding the extradition of terrorist Ziad Abu Ein, who was murdered in Tiberias, and despite pressure from various elements in the Arab world, he was indeed extradited (apparently he was later released in one of the "deals" of releases).
(2) Attempts to correct the lack of reciprocity have been made over nearly two decades, starting in the early 1980s. I had the opportunity to accompany them; The great difficulty in reaching a remedy for the situation, which everyone understood the need for, involved the moral question of extraditing Israeli citizens, the legacy of the 1978 amendment. Parashat Criminal Appeal 6182/82 The above (hereinafter - Parashat Sheinbein [44]) was one of the most difficult expressions in this regard, since the "ordinary" anomaly of judging people in an Israeli court for offenses that in themselves had no Israeli connection, and the difficulties involved in bringing such evidence were joined by the slightest connection of Sheinbein To Israel, which was like mountains hanging from her hair. Since he was accused of brutal murder in every respect, there was a great deal of grievance on the part of officials in Washington, D.C., that the murder took place in the suburbs of Maryland (and in the opposite hypothetical situation, which could not have happened in practice because the United States continued to extradite citizens after the 1978 amendment despite the fact that-reciprocity, this would have aroused outrage here as well.) Following Sheinbein's flight to Israel, a senior member of Congress even sounded a warning regarding aid to Israel, and it was necessary to clarify that in Israel, as in the United States, extradition is not done except through judicial proceedings as usual. Finally, in 1998, a proposal was submitted The Extradition Law (Amendment No. 6) (Exception to the extradition of a citizen), in which it was proposed to allow the extradition of a citizen who committed an extradition offense abroad while he was a citizen and a resident, if The requesting state undertook to transfer him back to Israel for the presidency of the