However, after the hearing, it became clear following the defendants' examination that the pages presented by the plaintiffs in the hearing of the request for temporary relief, as pages from the plaintiff's book from 2014, do not appear in it (!). The defendants even filed a special motion in the matter to delete the request for interim relief, claiming that the pages presented were prepared especially for the purpose of the hearing.
In response to this (dated May 4, 2022), the plaintiffs confirmed that the term SOS does not appear in the 2014 book, but claimed, for the first time, that an updated edition of the book was published in 2017 and that the pages presented in the hearing where the term SOS appears are from the same updated edition.
In the decision rejecting the request for interim relief, I noted that it was sufficient that the pages were presented as having been removed from the 2014 book, and that the existence of an updated edition from 2017 was written only after it was revealed that the 2014 book did not mention the term SOS, in order not to attribute weight to the "2017 edition" of the book. Therefore, I was not required to rule on the serious allegations raised by the defendants regarding the fabrication of evidence for trial.
In the plaintiff's affidavits, no real evidence was presented for the publication of an updated edition of the book in 2017, such as the mention of the book in any source (even in the plaintiff's own study syllabus), a reference to its printing (the plaintiff claimed that it was printed in hundreds of copies - p. 5 of the transcript of the first hearing, paras. 28-30) or evidence that it was in any library (there is no dispute that the plaintiff did not provide the National Library with copies of the updated book, and there is a dispute as to whether, in accordance with the Books Law, 5761-2000, it was obligatory to do so). The plaintiff's reference in Appendix 1 to the affidavit of support in response to the motion for summary dismissal of the request for temporary relief, dated May 4, 2022 (Afeka College's Research Activity Report), shows at most that the plaintiff had translated the book into English at that time, and there is no mention of editing an updated edition of the book from 2014.