The witness, Adv. Sommer: We wanted to find a way to find a way to not be at the same event every four months. That was the goal."
Since the aforesaid has been clarified, I will turn to an examination of the legality of the sanction taken by the defendant - the suspension of Zahavi and the condition that it set for his return to work apart from an apology - a security deposit or a financial commitment to indemnify for half of the sanctions that will be imposed on it in the future.
- I will begin with the suspension of Zahavi from his position - Adv. Sommer testified about the possible sources of suspension from line 16 on page 9 to line 15 on page 10, as follows:
"The term suspension has 3 different options to catch it, okay? And I manage to give you the learned answer because I've thought about this question before so I'm saying it openly, okay? There are 3 things here, two of which overlap a bit. The first thing is that if we were in a world of employee-employer relations, there is an issue of suspension of an employee by his employer and there are certain procedures for this matter, isn't that the situation because we're not in the world of an employer employee, okay? That's the first point. The second point where we can talk about suspension is on the regulatory level. We have had previous cases, including with Nathan, that Natan was suspended either by the station or at the request of the Second Authority, both things have happened in the past. And the third thing is that when a party that enters into an agreement believes that the agreement has been fundamentally breached, then it has to defend itself against continued fundamental breaches. And that's what happened in this case, and in fact where the party had the right, which you also agree with, perhaps, if I understood your question correctly, maybe to cancel the contract due to a claim of a fundamental breach of it, the remedy of suspension until the problem is resolved is smaller. In other words, the whole contains, in my view, the whole contains what is less than that. And the first thing you do when some kind of accident happens to you as far as I'm concerned, that event was an accident. And it was the second accident in a short period of time, because we had the Channel 14 affair, which I assume came up in previous investigations, and the honorable court is aware of it. When that happens, the first thing you do, like when you have an employee who turns out to be doing it, who has a problem with him or equipment that is having a problem with him, the first thing you stop. And you try to settle things further. That was the beginning of the suspension. In other words, it stemmed from two reasons in this case. The first reason, as also appears in the correspondence in the file, was that the station replied to the second authority that it had suspended the broadcaster. And this was part of the considerations that the Second Authority mentioned in reference to the reduced sentence. And the second point is that the station also sought to reach a certain certainty or reduce the risk that such events will happen later in the wake of the Channel 14 affair, and asked to conduct a discussion and return it to the broadcast only after this issue has been regulated." [My emphases L.B.]