In his testimony before the defendant, he noted a number of sentences that the plaintiff said during the interview: "The witness, Mr. Bardugo: My context is that it was said, if I were in his place, I would phrase it in a slightly different way, which means the same meaning... that Mr. Langotsky says in a very, very clear way that in war, unpleasant things happen, including the use of weapons, this may happen, a wolf should not have said what they say, yes? It's a pity that they stumbled with their tongues, he refers to a civil war." (p. 61, lines 3-4,13-15).
During his testimony before me, Mr. Caspit was asked about the nature of his impression of the plaintiff's words, in relation to what Mr. Raz said: "I was first of all impressed as someone who himself has been entrusted with writing texts and interpreting them for 40 years, and this is from the first sentence he said, it's a great shame that he said things as he said, that was the headline, then he went into resolutions that you can actually say that, I understood... that this move is dangerous, that this move could lead to civil war without saying that the prime minister is a death sentence, that's exactly the difference, as if it is permissible to criticize, it is permissible to warn, it is permissible to warn, it is forbidden to incite ..." (p. 18, lines 31-33; p. 19, lines 1-4).
The defendant further claimed that his words were a direct repetition of the plaintiff's words: "In war, unpleasant things happen, including the use of weapons, " thereby ignoring the fact that he attributed criminal intentions to the plaintiff. The description of the plaintiff as someone who threatened the defendant with his children and family, as a person who had intentions to kill the defendant and the supporters of the legal reform because of their different opinions, while attributing similar intentions to the plaintiff's son, is not learned at all from the plaintiff's words in the interview.
A reading of the transcript of the recording of the interview shows that already at the beginning of his remarks and throughout the interview, the plaintiff expressed his opinion that the proposed changes in the framework of the legal reform could lead to a civil war, and at the same time he also expressed his concern that this would materialize. The plaintiff did not express support for a civil war, but in fact the opposite - the plaintiff expressed serious concern that such a war might break out.