This is essentially the point I was making about reallocations in canoe slalom. The hierarchy of the allocations can change the outcome. However, I'm not sure Israel has a winning argument here.
I don't see that in the language regarding the host country quota. The text (from the version I viewed [25.01.2023]) states, "next highest placed athlete(s)." It doesn't seem to restrict NOCs with one quota from being allocated a second.
In terms of the reallocation of Oceania's quota, I do think they are correct about the language. However, I think they are wrong about the hierarchy. Oceania's quota technically can't be allocated at the same time as the other quotas, since it doesn't have some of the contingencies bestowed to those. I believe it would trigger the formal reallocation process outlined in section F, which (in my analysis of the document and results) would result in the quota being awarded to .
Of course, this post is based on my interpretation of the qualification document, which could be flawed.