One of the main proofs of this is the recording of the interrogation P/172, which is transcribed in the framework of P/172B.
In the framework of P/172, the defendant's explicit confessions, including a clear statement by the defendant, of his own free will, in which when he was asked whether the weapons were transferred to his vehicle, he explicitly answered in the affirmative. This answer is not only verbal, but it also includes a nod in the affirmative. P/172 includes a series of confessions and a series of statements that attest to the defendant's actual knowledge and involvement.
The argument that the defendant's words are merely a confession must be rejected. This is not the case. This is a full and clear admission. The defendant explicitly admits that the weapons were transferred to his vehicle, explicitly admits his part in the affair, and even describes the part of each of the three, the defendant, Shadi and Adi (the defendant's son), in the execution, and in addition a series of details that he provides attest to his clear knowledge of what the weapon is, what it includes, and more.
The petty argument raised on behalf of the defendant must be rejected on a number of grounds - the evidence before me, the many testimonies that came in this matter, and in particular the credible testimonies of the intelligence personnel, lead to the conclusion that no negotiations were conducted with the defendant to incriminate another. The negotiations that were conducted with the defendant were negotiations for the return of the weapons, on the condition that the defendant return the weapons and that his son's sentence or sentence would be reduced.
This is not a matter of negotiations for the defendant to be a state witness, since he was not asked to testify against anyone, and this is not what the negotiations were about.
As noted, negotiations were held with the intelligence personnel, but it was not for the defendant to be a state witness, but for the return of the weapons.