As a technical note, I will note that the transcripts of the two hearings are not numbered continuously, but rather that the transcript numbering of the last hearing begins anew. Given the above, further on - wherever the testimony of Zahavi or Zelkovnik is mentioned, the reference is to the transcript of the hearing of December 23, 2025 , while where the testimony of Adv. Somer is mentioned, the reference is to the transcript of the hearing of January 11, 2026.
Upon completion of the testimonies, instructions were given regarding the submission of written summaries, which were submitted, and after reviewing them, as well as all the material and writings that were placed before me, this judgment was given.
- As a roadmap for the future, I will detail that the starting point for the discussion is the issue of the interpretation of the agreement between the parties. In this framework, the argument will be examined whether, in accordance with the provisions of the agreement, the defendant has a duty to protect Zahavi in proceedings before the regulator, and in addition, the provisions of clause 2.6 will be examined with regard to the scope of the obligation to comply with the rules of the hearing and the instructions and decisions of the station's management on the matter.
In general, with regard to the interpretation of the provision of clause 2.6 - the defendant's arguments according to which in accordance with the provision of clause 2.6 Zahavi should have accepted its decision according to which the statement constitutes a breach of the regulation and therefore - when he refused to do so and he persists in his refusal - he is in breach of the agreement; In contrast, Zehavi's argument and accordingly the aforesaid decision-making authority is not granted, but it is necessary to examine whether the content of the statement does indeed constitute a breach of the regulation. In this regard, according to him, this is a legitimate statement that is protected by his freedom of expression and is therefore protected. As a continuation of this, the question will be examined whether, according to the provisions of clause 2.6 of the agreement, the defendant is entitled, within its authority, to give instructions to the plaintiffs at its sole discretion, including whether it was entitled to demand an apology and financial guarantees as a condition for Zehavi's return to the air, and in addition, whether it was entitled to suspend him, without paying him any salary, as long as he did not agree to these demands. With regard to the suspension sanction, I will examine the implications of taking this sanction - as distinct from the cancellation of the agreement in the present case, and I will also examine whether the conduct in which the agreement has not been cancelled so far, is sufficient to entitle the plaintiffs to payment or compensation. In this framework, to the extent that entitlement to payment or compensation of any kind is determined, the issue of the extent of the damage will be examined, and in the framework of it, the defendant's claim regarding the duty to reduce the damage that applies to the plaintiff will also be examined.