Moreover, and even more importantly, in practice, I did not find much in Zehavi's claim, and accordingly the defendant should have defended it before the regulator. This is in light of the fact that in any case these are not proceedings directed at Zahavi or that have an impact on Zahavi. Moreover, on the face of it, Zehavi's fate did not come out on the fact that the defendant did not defend him in these proceedings, but rather on the position taken by the defendant towards him. In this case, in her demand, she argued that he must obey her decision, that he must apologize for his statement, that he must entrust her with assurance that in the future he will not change his conduct as aforesaid, and that he will be suspended as long as he does not agree to these demands. Conduct that will be examined later anyway.
- From here I will turn to the main issue between the parties, which is related to the interpretation of clause 2.6 of the agreement. In the framework of the interpretation of this section, I will address the scope of its application, as well as the question of whether the steps taken by the defendant in this case are appropriate to the interpretation of this section.
I will begin with the preamble to section 2.6. The preamble to section 2.6 deals with the station's subordination to the provisions of the law, including the rules set by the regulator, and the obligation imposed on the broadcaster to uphold these provisions. As to the undertaking of the broadcaster set forth at the beginning of this section, the parties do not disagree. Thus, in this context, Zehavi testified on page 40, lines 32-33:
"The witness, Mr. Zehavi: Madam, I would be a liar if I said that I didn't know that I was subordinate because that's what's happening."
And also, on page 42, lines 14-16:
"The witness, Mr. Zehavi: By virtue of the fact that I work in a regulated place that is subject to the rules as a result of the fact that I am also supposed to be subject to the rules, even if I don't agree with you in some cases."