Thus, the attempt to give an explanation or other interpretation to the clear things that were written in real time should be rejected: "I give your own high offers in coordination" and "You win."
- In all that was said in the sentence that Nahum wrote to Zeiger that "Elta must not know," Triple C and Nahum argued that Nahum meant that Elta must not know about the mistake she made in making a combined acquisition of servers X and servers P, and that he did not intend to conceal the coordination of offers from Elta.
This argument must also be rejected. It has no real grip on the evidence. It has no anchor in the correspondence. Neither Nahum nor Zeiger testified that this was the intention. When asked about this, Nahum replied in his interrogation that he did not know why Elta should not know, and did not even hint at the version that was first raised in his summaries (P/237, paras. 726-732; from his words it emerged that he understood that he had done something improper that he was trying to hide from Elta, only claimed that he did not know what he meant; in another place, P/237, paras. 827, he even claimed that when Elta decided to split the acquisition, "we breathed a sigh of relief" in a manner that undermines the argument now being raised, as if they were trying to avoid splitting the acquisition). Nahum did not testify at the trial. In any case, here too there was no such version from his mouth. Zeiger did not claim that this was the intention either. Hence, the alleged version has no basis. This is enough to drop the ground beneath the claim.
More than necessary, it should be noted that Nahum and Triple C claimed that ELTA's demand for a combined purchase from one supplier of X servers and P servers was a mistake on ELTA because it paved the way for Harel and Triple C to win a deal without any real competition (e.g., paragraph 246 of Triple C summaries). This argument was also not substantiated. The fact that Value ultimately won the supply of the Unix servers is enough to put a significant question mark in relation to the claim and to testify that at the very least, there was uncertainty and feasibility for competition and the provision of the optimal price to Elta by others (ignoring the possibility of competition on the part of EMET). No basis was brought for the fact that splitting the combined UAV was beneficial to ELTA (see also Shakanevsky's testimony, at p. 1046, paras. 7-8, pp. 950, paras. 5-13, where he testified that sometimes one looks at the project as a whole and what is the cheapest price that can be obtained while increasing the bargaining power and sometimes it is possible to split; and the fact that at the end of the day ELTA split the combined UAV does not support it. If only remotely, with the suppressed claim that this is what the parties were trying to hide).