In their extensive summaries (pp. 334-338), counsel for defendant 1 referred to what they refer to as "the Arab merchant Karim in the wall". According to them, this was an Arab merchant, whom defendant 1 knew through Shlomo Metuk. Bekir presented himself as operating through a company called "Mandi Electric," and it is alleged that he has extensive business ties with various elements in the Palestinian Authority.
According to counsel for defendant 1, it was Bekir who ordered the goods from the supplier Rasco, for the ICC company from the Palestinian Authority.
In this regard, the defense relies mainly on the testimony of Shema Metuk, at pp. 2143-2147 of the transcript, as well as the testimony of Yehoshua Shlosh.
It will be said at this point that I do not give any credence to the testimony of Shlomo Metuk in this context, and I will note that the witness was declared a hostile witness (p. 2038 of the transcript), after he clearly contradicted what was stated in his statements, which were accepted as evidence of the veracity of their content (P/269 - P/277). This is a witness of very poor credibility, who apparently participated in some of the criminal activity described in the indictment, and in any case of contradiction, I prefer, without hesitation, what he said in his statements.
It should be noted that throughout the course of Matuk's interrogations, he did not mention, even a hint of the aforementioned Karim Bakir, about whom he testified extensively in his testimony in court, and confirmed every thesis offered to him by Attorney Yaron Gat, counsel for Defendant 1, during his cross-examination.
Therefore, I do not believe that the defense can rely on the testimony of Shlomo Metuk, regarding the existence and business activity, as it were, of Pillows in the Wall, even if a person with that name exists in reality.
Similar things should be said about the testimony of Yehoshua Shlosh, which has no credibility whatsoever as far as the merchant of the wall is concerned, and I do not see fit to expand on this, outside the framework of his separate ruling.