"Adv. Epstein: You've been involved in protecting Nathan from regulation over the years.
The witness, Adv. Somer: I defended the station, and Nathan. Yes.
Adv. Epstein: So the answer to Nathan is correct.
The Honorable Judge Bibi: Yes.
Adv. Epstein: You also defended the station, you also protected other broadcasters,
The witness, Adv. Somer: With great pride."
- Moreover, further support for my assertion can be found in the fact that the defendant did not always defend Zahavi's statements. Thus, an examination of the defendant's letter to the regulator, after the statement relating to the burning of Channel 14, shows that in the same matter, the defendant did not defend Zahavi's statement, but rather condemned it - since she did not believe that it was a legitimate statement (see Zelkovnik's letter of July 13, 2022, Appendix 5 to his affidavit). Similarly, in the present case, the defendant responded to the regulator's requests and found condemnation of Zehavi's statement and asked for other reasons to ease the sanction imposed on her (see Zelkovnik's letter to the Second Authority dated December 1, 2022, Appendix 12 to his affidavit). And what is the difference between the latter case and the previous case, the questioner will ask - the difference lies in Zehavi's position. Thus, in the case of Channel 14, Zahavi agreed with the condemnation and with the fact that the statement deviated from the accepted and permissible way, while now he does not agree with this position of the station.
From the aforesaid and detailed it appears that in all the cases in which the defendant allegedly defended Zahavi's affair vis-à-vis the regulator, it did not do so out of a contractual or any obligation to Zahavi, but out of its interest in defending itself against the regulator.
Therefore, prima facie, in contrast to the clear language of the agreement, there is no conduct of the defendant in this context that supports the plaintiffs' claim regarding their right to defense before the regulator.