the plaintiffs' claims;
- At the beginning of their arguments and as a preamble, the plaintiffs present their position and accordingly the defendant - as a powerful broadcasting organization, out of a desire to "flatter" a low and political common denominator, sacrificed Zehavi - a veteran and senior broadcaster. It was further claimed that the defendant acted in gross bad faith, in breach of a written contract, a long-standing practice and basic fiduciary duties of a professional partnership of destiny that lasted for a quarter of a century. It was claimed that the defendant built her brand on Zahavi's back, enjoyed the high ratings and revenues it brought for decades, and at the moment of truth chose to silence him and mute his microphone unilaterally. The plaintiffs further emphasize that this is not a legitimate termination of the contract, but rather a forceful attempt to subdue the broadcaster's Zahavi and force him to unilaterally change the terms of the contract. It was claimed that the defendant took a draconian step of "suspension" against the plaintiff without a source of authority, stopped paying Zahavi's salary, and at the same time "imprisoned" his reputation, by continuing to display his name and picture on its website for its commercial purposes. According to the plaintiffs, this conduct, along with a public smear campaign in which the defendant presented the plaintiff as someone who harmed the "holy of Israel", led to the crushing of his bread and the professional assassination of him.
- On the merits of the matter and in more detail, it was argued that the normative basis for the parties' relations was expressed in the agreements concluded between them, the first of which was dated September 8, 1997. It was argued that the essence of the engagement under these agreements was not a standard labor relationship, but rather a joint venture to produce a plan. A venture to which Zahavi brought his unique and biting voice, while the defendant undertook to provide the platform and the legal and regulatory "Iron Dome" to protect his freedom of expression.
- According to the plaintiffs, this undertaking of the defendant to provide the plaintiff with a defense was expressed in clause 2.7 of the 2007 agreement, in which the defendant had an absolute duty to provide a legal defense and indemnify the plaintiffs against the claims of third parties based on the content of the plan. According to the plaintiffs, contrary to the defendants' claims and as it appears from the actual conduct of the parties over the years, the defendant's undertaking under the provisions of this section does not only include protection against claims by third parties in legal proceedings (such as libel suits), but in addition, and mainly, the protection of Zehavi's words in proceedings before the regulator - the Second Authority. In support of these claims, the plaintiffs refer to letters issued by the defendant over the years, as well as to the testimony of Adv. Sommer (in his cross-examination of January 11, 2026, on page 23, lines 5-13 of the transcript), in which he admitted that the station had defended Zahavi "fiercely" vis-à-vis the regulator over the years.
- Moreover, according to the plaintiffs, even the undertaking that is the subject of clause 2.6 of the 2007 agreement should be read in harmony with the essence of the engagement and the undertaking that is the subject of clause 2.7. As for this, it was argued that while section 2.6 defines the normative standard, section 2.7 states that if claims of a violation of this standard are raised, the station will be the one to provide the legal framework to the broadcaster. It was further argued that the violation of clause 2.6 does not negate the duty of defence set forth in clause 2.7. This is due to the logic that created and operated the contract, and according to it, the defendant is obligated to protect Zahavi. In this regard, it was argued that we do not live in a regime in which the regulatory authority determines that a person has violated the law without being given the minimum opportunity to explain himself or defend his words. Accordingly, it was argued that in the face of the complaints against the plaintiff, he should have the ability to convince the Second Authority in the framework of a proper proceeding that his words did not constitute a violation of the law and that the defendant's duty was to provide the plaintiff with the platform and representation to convince the Second Authority of this. It was argued that this was also the case over the years, when the defendant's counsel explicitly wrote in his letters that the boundary of freedom of expression is not decided by complaints on behalf of the public, but that in programs of this type freedom of expression should be preferred. The problem is that according to the plaintiffs, in the present case, the defendant herself decided on Zehavi's sentence before his position was heard before the regulator. This is contrary to the logic of clauses and the applicability of clause 2.7 is contingent on the defendant's determination, and accordingly the action does not constitute a violation of the provisions of clause 2.6. It was argued that this interpretation by the defendant to the provisions of section 2.6 is contrary to the conduct of the parties, which is the best interpretive tool for learning their intentions as well as the practice between them. This, too, clearly showed that the defendant completely protected Zehavi's freedom of expression vis-à-vis the regulator. This was when the defendant herself saw Zahavi crying out the citizen's cry and justified his blunt style as an essential part of the plan. It was argued that contrary to the agreement and contrary to the practice until now, the defendant breached the agreement when it chose on November 13, 2022 not to defend the plaintiff against the Second Authority, but to join the chorus of defenders.
- On the merits of the statement, the plaintiffs claim that the statement of November 13, 2022 did not in any way constitute an attack on the Jewish religion, the public of believers, the "holy places of Israel, " or as one that could be interpreted as death wishes for an entire public. However, this statement constitutes a harsh political and social criticism, which is extremely legitimate. This is in view of the circumstances in which the statement was made - that morning a horrific figure was revealed about 174 lonely elderly people who were found dead in their homes without anyone knowing about it, and the plaintiff's anger went out of his heart against elected officials who neglect the weak. According to the plaintiff, he did not target the entire religious public or harm the religion or the sanctities of Israel, as alleged, but from the plaintiff's words, when they are presented in full, it is clear that he directed his tongue only at those cynical politicians who use religion as a sword to dig into, whom he called "Drax", and not at the traditionalists as a whole. The plaintiffs further emphasize that the statement had no intention of harming a religious symbol or wishing death to an entire public, but rather that it was nothing more than a courageous social outcry, which is at the heart of freedom of expression. The plaintiffs claim that support for their argument regarding the statements that arise as soon as one hears the whole statement and not only parts of it, can be found in Zelkovnik's cross-examination (of December 23, 2025, page 87, line 1 to page 89, line 10), in which he evaded providing an answer to the question of whether, after reading the words in their context, it was indeed an infringement on the sanctities of Israel, and he testified again that these were the public's reactions to the statement.
- According to the plaintiffs, in the circumstances as detailed, the defendant fundamentally breached the agreement, first of all because it did not provide Zahavi with protection. Moreover, it was claimed that the defendant further fundamentally violated the agreement between the parties, by suspending Zahavi from broadcasting and unilaterally stopping paying his salary as of November 14, 2022. As for this, it was argued that the term "suspension" does not appear in the agreement between the parties at all - as confirmed by Adv. Sommer in his interrogation. In addition, it was claimed that Adv. Sommer confirmed in his interrogation on January 11, 2026, that the parties' relationship is not an employee-employer relationship. It was argued that in the absence of support for the agreement between the parties, the defendant was not entitled to invent an "intermediate way" of suspension of Zahavi without payment, and it had only two legal options: to allow him to broadcast or terminate the agreement lawfully with advance notice in accordance with clause 8.2 of the agreement. (I will note that in this argument the plaintiff refers to clause 8.2 of the 1997 agreement - a clause that, as stated, does not exist in the 2007 agreement).
- Moreover, according to Zehavi, the defendant abused her power and carried out improper economic coercion against him, when she gave him a draconian ultimatum, according to which he would not be able to return to broadcasting without depositing financial guarantees to indemnify the station against future fines. It was argued that this demand, which was expressed in Zelkovnik's letter of December 23, 2022, is in direct contradiction to the spirit of the agreement and to the indemnity clause, which imposes the financial risk on the station. It was argued that when Zahavi refused to give in to the extortion demands, which were intended to harm his professional autonomy and personal integrity, the defendant prevented the fulfillment of the contract and fundamentally breached it, while continuing to suspend it.
- Without derogating from all of the aforesaid, it was argued that even after Zahavi's suspension from broadcasting, the defendant continued to violate his moral right, in contravention of section 46(2( of the Copyright Law, 5768-2007 (hereinafter: the "Copyright Law"), because according to the plaintiffs, the defendant continued to broadcast the program under the brand name identified with him - "Nervous Zahavi" - while placing alternative broadcasters in it, who held a worldview completely opposite to that of the plaintiff. It was argued that pouring content that is completely contrary to Zehavi's values and identity into the work and brand that he himself founded and designed, constitutes a serious distortion and an offensive act that misleads the public. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant's behavior made the plaintiff a "living person" from a professional point of view; On the one hand, it completely silenced him and prevented him from broadcasting, and on the other hand, it continued to make offensive and distorted use of his name and work while creating a false representation to the listeners.
- Moreover, according to the plaintiffs, the defendant acted in extreme bad faith when, on the one hand, she "imprisoned" the plaintiff's reputation in a venture that did not end, and prevented him from finding an alternative livelihood, while suspending the plaintiff and blackening his face. On the other hand, the defendant did not formally terminate the contract and left the non-competition clause set forth in clause 5.2 of it in place and blocked the plaintiff's way from contacting competing entities in order for them to employ him. It was argued that not only that, the defendant, for its part, continued to enjoy the plaintiff's reputation and his screenshots on its website for many months after the suspension (Appendix 10 to the plaintiffs' exhibits, as of June 4, 2023), under glorifying headlines presenting him as the "Knight of the Poor". In this context, the plaintiff further refers to the Zelkovnik interrogation of December 23, 2025 (page 92, line 30 to page 93, line 15), in which he admitted that he had preserved Zahavi's brand on the site out of a desire to "preserve the option to return it." It was argued that this testimony proves that the defendant left the plaintiff in legal ambiguity and in a vague situation for its commercial and marketing needs only, with fatal damage to his earning capacity.
- The plaintiffs further claim that the defendant libeled Zehavi and published publications against him that constitute defamation under section 1 of the Prohibition of Defamation Law, 5725-1965 (hereinafter: the "Prohibition of Defamation Law"). This was while the defendant and its managers embarked on a public and orchestrated smear campaign against the plaintiff, presenting him as someone who had harmed the sanctities of Israel and as someone who was no longer worthy of appearing in the audience, while completely distorting his words. In the context of this claim, the plaintiffs claim that from the evidence it became clear that the defendant was the one behind the article that was published on March 4, 2023 (Appendix 42 to the plaintiff's affidavit). This is explicitly supported by the defendant's statement of defense, in which in paragraph 102 she expressly admits that she contacted the media for an update regarding the plaintiff's suspension. Moreover, it was claimed that even Adv. Sommer confirmed in his interrogation (dated January 11, 2026, page 27, line 34 onwards( that the station had chosen to issue a public statement. In addition, it was claimed that this witness attached to Zelkovnik's affidavit the statement of condemnation, which he himself published, and also confirmed in his affidavit that the defendant contacted the Mako media on her own initiative, and even attached the article of March 1, 2023, which includes a clear quote attributed to officials at the station, according to which: "Zahavi was given an option to apologize for the offensive things he said, but he chose not to apologize and therefore until he does so, He won't go back to the microphone." It was argued that in these circumstances, it is clear from the letter of defense, as well as from the defendant's affidavits, that she herself is behind the defamatory advertising campaign against the plaintiff. It was argued that these publications constituted defamation, since the plaintiff did not hurt the feelings of the listeners and did not express himself against the ultra-Orthodox public, and in addition, contrary to what was claimed, he did not commit any moral offense, but rather conveyed legitimate political criticism. The plaintiffs further claim that the defendant's publications were made maliciously in order to legitimize the plaintiff's illegal suspension, in order to make him an allotted person in the public discourse, and in order to sabotage his chances of employment in any media outlet. It was further claimed that the said publication directly led to the harm to the plaintiff's livelihood and to the breaking of his bread. In light of this, it was argued that the plaintiff is entitled to a double compensation award without proof of damage in accordance with the Prohibition of Defamation Law.
- As to the damages claimed by them, the plaintiffs specify that - as detailed in the supplementary affidavit submitted by them on January 22, 2025, and in the evidence that was attached to it, which they claim was not contradicted - they are entitled to damages as detailed below:
- For the ongoing violation and loss of income - the sum of ILS 50, 000 per month multiplied by 27 months and a total of ILS 1, 350, 000 plus VAT and alternatively ILS 400, 000 for the period until the filing of the claim. Alternatively, for reliance compensation in the sum of ILS 1, 350, 000. In the context of this sum and in response to the defendant's argument and accordingly the plaintiff admitted that the monthly consideration was only ILS 25, 000, the plaintiffs reply that the amount of the monthly consideration in the amount of ILS 25, 000, to which the defendant refers constituted a temporary and time-limited arrangement only (from June 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019), which stemmed for health reasons, and does not reflect the plaintiff's real value in the market, which was set at 50. 000 ₪. It was further argued that since the defendant destroyed a product that was painstakingly built for a quarter of a century, turned the plaintiff into a "muktza" in the market and severely harmed his professional autonomy, the plaintiffs are entitled to these compensation under section 10 of the Contracts Law (Remedies for Breach of Contract), 5731-1970 (hereinafter: "the Contracts Remedies Law").
- Compensation for infringement of the moral right in the amount of ILS 1, 350, 000 due to the distortion of his work and the broadcast of the program with alternative broadcasters.
- Compensation for malicious defamation in the amount of ILS 170, 000 (increased damages under the Prohibition of Defamation Law)
According to the plaintiffs, their total damages are ILS 2, 870, 000, but for reasons of fees, they set the amount of the claim at ILS 2, 600, 000.