The appellant further argues that the dominant connection of the offenses attributed to him is to Israel and not to the United States. According to him, since these offenses - conspiracy to import a drug and conspiracy to distribute it - do not include a consequential component, they should be viewed as offenses whose foundations have been fulfilled in Israel. Given the consideration, in addition, that the perpetrator is an Israeli citizen and resident, who has not escaped the law in another country and can be prosecuted in Israel, the extradition, according to the claim, no longer serves a proper purpose and is disproportionate. The appellant also argues that the purpose of the connection to the import and distribution of drugs, as well as the personal relationship of the victims of the offense, are not equivalent against the principle of territorial jurisdiction, to which decisive weight should be attributed. In any event, in circumstances in which a parallel jurisdiction has been established, as in our case, the jurisdiction of the country of nationality of the perpetrator, which is the State of Israel, should be preferred.
A third argument made by the appellant is that his extradition will harm his procedural and substantive rights as a criminal defendant. He will not be judged in his natural environment, and the language difficulties and the differences between the Israeli and American legal systems will harm his defense and his right to a fair trial. This refers mainly to the jury mechanism, which is a different decision-making mechanism than that used in Israeli law, but also to the scope of the right to examine investigative material, which is more limited in the United States, to the fact that hearsay testimony is admissible in American law in certain circumstances, and to the non-existence there, unlike in Israel, of a requirement for evidentiary assistance for the testimony of state witnesses.
The appellant rejects the argument that his non-extradition paints Israel as a state of refuge for criminals, since he did not flee here at all and did not commit any of the charges against him outside the borders of the state. According to him, the real purpose behind the decision to extradite him is the desire of the prosecution to remove evidentiary difficulties that make it difficult to bring him to trial in Israel.