"On November 13, as part of my criticism of public representatives, I said that I would have liked some of them to tie their tefillin to their throats and hang themselves because they were doing nothing. Following this, the station's management decided to keep me away from the microphone until further notice. I understand that the way I worded these things created a storm and hurt the feelings of many listeners and the public. After some thought, I regret the choice to use this phrase, and I have decided to apologize for the offensive things."
- That the apology be recorded in advance and that the recording be approved by the station's management. Natan will undertake (in writing( that there will be no denial afterwards that he did not actually apologize, as happened after an apology that Channel 14 would burn down its members, or any attempt by him to diminish the significance of the apology.
- Natan undertakes (in writing( that he recognizes the authority of the management and the editor-in-chief, and that as is customary in the market,
The media in general and regional radio in particular, in cases where according to the editor-in-chief's decision his words crossed red lines - and the editor-in-chief instructs him to retract and/or clarify and/or apologize - he will do so without delays or arguments.
...
- Natan will reaffirm his obligation (set forth in the agreement( to uphold the rules of the Second Authority, and in the event that he violates them and fines are issued to the station for doing so, Natan will undertake to bear 50% of the fines that will be imposed on the station for his remarks."
- I am of the opinion that in these demands the defendant deviated from the framework permitted in the agreement between the parties or what is permitted by law. This is because, even insofar as it is correct for the purposes of the hearing to assume that the defendant is entitled to demand that the broadcaster apologize (i.e., I am correct to view the apology as part of the instructions for broadcasting from now on( - even where the parties do not see eye to eye with regard to the content of the broadcaster's words - in my view, to the extent that the broadcaster refuses to apologize, at most the defendant is entitled to terminate the contract, but it cannot add to its terms terms that do not exist in it. In general, the defendant is not entitled to order the suspension of Zahavi for an indefinite period or to order the deposit of financial collateral in its hands - both of which constitute a change in the terms of the agreement and therefore a new proposal for the agreement - which cannot be forced on the broadcaster. In a closed article, I will note that in any event, in the present case, it would have been incorrect for the defendant to suffice with Zahavi's apology alone, and therefore, I am not required to answer the question of whether, insofar as the defendant had conditioned Zahavi's return to work only with an apology, this demand would have come within the scope of her rights under the agreement. Thus, from line 38 on page 35 to line 4 on page 36, Adv. Sommer testified:
"Attorney Epstein: I mean, you didn't settle for just an apology, if he had apologized and said, 'It's forbidden to say things like this and the sanctities of Israel, ' it wouldn't have been enough. He also had to bring you various guarantees for the purpose of a promise, from the next time the second authority (unclear).