It was claimed that in the face of Zehavi's conduct, the station acted in good faith, since it had a financial interest in Zahavi, which was reflected in the desire to return him to broadcasting as soon as possible. It was argued that an expression of this can be found in the defendant's attempts to urge Zehavi to re-broadcast and in her choice not to cancel the agreement between the parties - in accordance with the provisions of clause 8.2 of the agreement, which grants the possibility of cancelling the agreement without entitlement to compensation (also with regard to the defendant's claim in this context, I will note that the defendant refers to a provision from the 1997 agreement, which does not exist in the 2007 agreement).
- In the margins, the defendant claims that in his cross-examination, the plaintiff raised new facts that were not included in his affidavits - original or supplementary - including that he was "beaten, cursed and threatened" as a result of the statement, and that he contacted the station's shareholders in real time in an attempt to attribute direct motives to the station. In addition, it was claimed that in the framework of his supplementary affidavit, Zahavi also tried to change the narrative of the prosecution on the question of liability and to cast a new construction of an ongoing tort, in which it was claimed that the suspension proceedings had not been lawfully completed and that the radio was keeping him in a state of continuous contractual imprisonment. As to all of these claims, the defendant argues that they should be rejected due to the expansion of the façade.
- In summary, the defendant claims that all the evidence proves that she acted lawfully and in good faith, while Zahavi violated the agreements, refused to apologize and thwarted the continuation of his broadcasts. Therefore, the court was asked to dismiss the lawsuit in all its components and to charge the plaintiffs with legal expenses and attorney's fees.
Discussion and Decision;
- In the proceeding, affidavits of the main witness were submitted on behalf of the parties, and a supplementary affidavit was also submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs regarding their damage. I will note that the defendant, for her part, chose not to file an affidavit in response to the plaintiffs' supplementary affidavit (despite the right she was given to do so in my decision of December 26, 2024), while claiming that she could not find an addition to her affidavits, given that the damage is always denied (see page 12, lines 1-2 of the minutes of the hearing of December 23, 2025).
After the affidavits were submitted, the declarants on behalf of the parties were interrogated on two dates: in the hearing on December 23, 2025, the plaintiff Natan Zehavi was interrogated on behalf of the plaintiffs and Mr. Or Zelkovnik on behalf of the defendant. At the hearing on January 11, 2026, Attorney Hillel Somekh testified on behalf of the defendant.