The concentration of the aforesaid shows that it has not been proven that Zehavi's statement did indeed violate the relevant regulatory provisions, and moreover, on the face of it, hearing it in the context shows that it constitutes an exercise of freedom of expression. In light of the aforesaid, I determine that by the very fact of his statement, Zahavi did not violate the provisions of the agreement between the parties.
- However, even with this determination, the discussion did not end, since an additional question is whether, in these circumstances, Zehavi must accept the station's instructions, and more specifically whether, in this case, the instructions given by the station came within the scope of the options available to it in the framework of the agreement. As to this question, I will begin by noting that - with regard to the instructions that the station is entitled to give - I am correct in assuming that section 2.6 can contain, in terms of its language, a determination, and accordingly the station is authorized to instruct the broadcaster to comply from henceforth with such and other provisions with regard to the content of his words. However, the dispute in this case is not as to the instructions as to the content of the matter from now on, but rather focuses on the question of whether the station is entitled to demand that the broadcaster comply with any instruction given by it, and whether it can take, to the extent that he refuses to do so, any sanction it chooses. In this case, is the station authorized to demand that the broadcaster apologize for things for which he does not think there is room to apologize?; Is it authorized to suspend the broadcaster indefinitely, without paying him his salary?; In addition, the mother is authorized to demand, as a condition for his return to work, the deposit of financial guarantees and a commitment to bear half of the sanctions that will be imposed on the station in the future for the broadcaster's remarks. These demands are the demands that were demanded by the defendant from Zahavi. This is explicitly evident from Adv. Sommer's letter dated February 5, 2023 (Appendix 6 to Adv. Sommer's affidavit). In the framework of the station, the station's position regarding the conditions for Zahavi's return to work was summarized as follows:
"1. A demand that Natan unequivocally apologize for his remarks. (This is a version that is acceptable to us - we are willing to consider another version that will be acceptable(: