the defendant's claims;
- The defendant opens and emphasizes in its summaries that there is no dispute that Zahavi is a first-rate radio broadcaster and has many rights, but that the defendant filed a claim for an astronomical sum that uses pompous and harsh language. It was argued that in this lawsuit, Zahavi's colorful manner of expression should not be examined or judged by the statement that is the subject of the hearing and whether it is protected by the protection of freedom of expression, but rather in the proceeding here a simple legal dispute must be decided - which of the parties fundamentally violated the agreement between the parties. According to the defendant, with all the empathy for Zahavi, his status, his work, his work and his contribution, where the defendant filed a claim for damages, he must prove a violation by the other party. However, according to the defendant, the plaintiffs did not prove any breach of the agreement by the defendant, and moreover, it became clear that Zahavi was the one who "kicked" the basic contractual provisions - which were intended to ensure that Zahavi would cooperate and conduct himself in compliance with the relevant regulations and the station's instructions - when he violated the normative foundation, refused in principle and defiantly refused to cooperate or receive any instructions from the station's management, and thus thwarted the continuation of his broadcasts with his own hands. Moreover, it was claimed that while the station acted in maximum good faith and begged Zahavi to accept the authority of the editor-in-chief so that he would return to broadcasting as soon as possible - Zahavi sat idly by, refrained from taking any action to minimize his damages, and chose to present a distorted narrative of victimhood, while raising baseless claims about the station's political motives.
- Even before detailing its arguments on their merits, the defendant sought to clarify the status of the station, which holds a commercial public broadcasting franchise and operates by virtue of the Second Authority for Television and Radio Law, 5750-1990 (hereinafter: the "Second Authority Law"), and therefore it is obligated to uphold the provisions of the law, including the rules of the Second Authority. It was detailed that the station's CEO and editor-in-chief is subject to duties and rights under the law and the broadcasting franchise, and even has a personal liability in relation to statements made by broadcasters, including in accordance with theProhibition of Defamation Law. It was argued that these obligations obligate the station, and personally the editor-in-chief, to ensure that the broadcast content does not offend public sentiment and does not contravene the guidelines and rules of the regulator to which the station is subject. According to the defendant, taking into account this status of the station, the wording of the agreement between the parties was also written.
- On the merits, the defendant argues that the foundations of the engagement between the parties are detailed in the agreements signed between them. It was argued that Zahavi was a legal escort at the time of signing the agreements, and that the agreements were renewed several times, and therefore he could not hear the claim that he did not understand the terms of the agreements. It was argued that in accordance with the agreements between the parties, first, the contract between the parties is a contract for the provision of services and not an employment relationship.
According to the defendant, the relevant provision in our case is that set forth in clause 2.6 of the agreement, in which Zahavi was given three fundamental undertakings: one, to provide the services while maintaining the provisions of the law and regulations, the second to consult as necessary with the station's management in all matters relating to the provision of the services, and the third, to accept the "guidance and decision of the management" in any case of doubt. According to the defendant, this undertaking of the plaintiff to act in compliance with the Second Authority Law and the rules of ethics is a fundamental condition without which there is none.