Civil Appeal Authority 65005-03-26 Nissim Vattori v. Mordechai Harari - part 5

Judge David Mintz:

I agree.

Judge Gila Kanfi-Steinitz:

I agree with the result reached by my colleague, the judge A.  Stein.  I will note that it is not impossible that the expression before us is an expression of an opinion and not a fact: the respondent used the expression "corrupt in man" - a superlative, which is one of the signs of rhetorical sailing, and not of establishing a fact; And this verse even opens a sequence of four phrases, three of which the Magistrate's Court ruled that they can be considered "As an expression of position in view of the context in which they were spoken".  However, it is sufficient for me that the District Court established a defense claim for the respondent, which is the defense of good faith, without dealing with the Magistrate's Court's determination that the respondent did not lift the burden imposed on him under Article 16 to the Prohibition of Defamation Law, 5725-1965 - in a manner that omits the basis for the result it reached.  Therefore, I am not required to address the question of the scope of the appellate court's intervention in the classification of expressions, whether as an opinion or as a fact.  I will note that since it has been determined in case law that the question of the meaning of a phrase is essentially an interpretive question, which is examined from the text and its context in the eyes of a reasonable person, I doubt whether there is justification for deviating from the usual rules of intervention.

It was decided, as stated in the judge's judgment A.  Stein.

Given today, August 12,2026.