The defendant's monologue was constructed from beginning to end as a single piece, without any separation and without being able to understand what the plaintiff's words were and what the defendant's reaction was. A comparison of the monologue with the plaintiff's words in the interview shows that the defendant mentioned a relatively small part of the full interview, while ignoring the plaintiff's words in their entirety, which were mainly a warning against civil war.
In the framework of the monologue, the defendant presented a thesis, which, according to him, corresponded to his personal understanding of the plaintiff's words: "... After all, I am speaking during what is called my understanding of reality, and my understanding of reality is that of Langotsky confirming the words and of David Hodak...")p. 58, lines 29-31) and later on: "... that he confirms the words of Raz and Hodak is what he said in the interview." (p. 59, lines 2-3), as well as his understanding on the basis of things that in the defendant's opinion the plaintiff should have said: "It would have been expected of a man of Langotsky's stature to say in the interview that he unreservedly condemned and denounced Hodak and Raz's calls for an armed and bloody civil war." (Paragraph 28 of the affidavit).
The defendant claimed that his words were made not only in response to the plaintiff's interview that morning, but also in response to the statements and events that preceded them (paragraph 5 of the affidavit). The defendant further testified that when people such as Adv. Hodak, Ze'ev Raz, the plaintiff and others, such as former Prime Minister Olmert and Ehud Barak, and Shikma Bressler, say that they intend to use firearms as a tool in a political struggle, he senses a tangible threat directed at him personally as well, and he sees a personal duty to warn and protest (paragraph 9 of the affidavit; p. 71, lines 8-12). The defendant was asked to quote the parts from the monologue, which were a reference to those previous events (p. 57, lines 17-19), or a reference to the words of the personalities he mentioned, but he did not present any clear answer to this. (p. 66, lines 7-11). It should be noted that in the monologue the defendant mentioned only the name of Adv. Hodak: "Every story of Hodak... So I mentioned Hodak, he was the main thing, associatively, the tangible threat is the one that threatened me personally... (p. 57, lines 14,16; p. 66, lines 15-16).