After the plaintiff's words are screened, the defendant addresses his viewers in a monologue and says the following (starting at minute 1:23 until the end of the segment at minute 2:07):
"... This group of feeble panickers, most of whom I don't even know what they did in the paint at all, yes? Peleg, I think he didn't do it at all in the army, he was discharged after two days. Yes? He's talking, he's even talking that we want, yes we want whoever - we, we want, the people of Israel want victory, ... Who are you, a bunch of panic-mongers? Who are you to say what's going on? You've taken over the media, you're demoralizing wartime. Madness! How did we get to this madness? [The highlighted passages are referred to in paragraph 4 of the statement of claim as the 'libelous publication'].
- Four days later, on August 13,2025, the plaintiff's attorney sent the defendants a warning letter, demanding an apology and compensation in the amount of ILS 50,000 (Appendix 1 to the statement of claim). The plaintiff claims - and the defendants did not disagree with this - that he served in the IDF full-time, both compulsory and reserve duty for 16 years, despite a chronic illness and despite the fact that he was entitled to be discharged from the IDF.
- The next day, on August 14,2025, on another program of "The Patriots" on Channel 14, the defendant said:
"Guy Peleg, I said that he did a few months of military service, according to what he claims, he did full service. He volunteered and did full service. I checked... that's what it is... So here I amended it, speaking of lawsuits and all sorts of things" (the additional video clip was also submitted on March 22,2026).
The defendants view the aforementioned section as an amendment to the publication dated August 9,2026 (hereinafter - the "Amendment").
The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916
- 12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)On August 17,2025, counsel for the defendants replied in writing to the plaintiff's counsel and referred him to the aforementioned amendment (Appendix 2 to the statement of defense).
- The plaintiff, for his part, was not satisfied with the amendment and on September 12,2025, he filed this claim in the amount of ILS 160,000. Attached to the statement of claim was a letter from the plaintiff's attorney dated August 13,2025, as well as a transcript of part of the plan that was the subject of the publication.
- On December 1,2025, the defendants filed a statement of defense. Its essence is that the publication is an expression of a general opinion in the media and a concrete response to an extreme political position that the plaintiff voiced against the Israeli government on the eve of the occupation of Gaza, and that it is an expression of an opinion that is protected under the broad protection of freedom of expression given in the context of political, public, and media discourse.
- On May 24,2026, a hearing was held before a visual conference in the presence of the parties and counsel for the parties.
At the end of the meeting, in the absence of a factual dispute, I suggested - and counsel for the parties agreed to my suggestion - that the need to conduct investigations was obsolete. Therefore, it was agreed and decided to submit affidavits to the High Court of Justice, and to submit written summaries.
- On June 2,2026, the plaintiff filed an affidavit of the High Court of Justice on his behalf; on June 4,2026, the defendants filed affidavits in the High Court of Justice of the defendant and the CEO of Channel 14. The plaintiff's summaries were filed on July 12,2026; the defendants' summaries were filed on August 23,2026.
Discussion and Decision:
- A hearing on a claim under the Prohibition of Defamation Law is conducted in four stages:
The first stage is to extract the meaning from the expression according to standards acceptable to a reasonable person and an objective interpretation of the expression-publication according to the external circumstances and language; the second stage is to examine whether it is a publicational expression for which the Prohibition of Defamation Law imposes liability, according to sections 1 and 2 of the aforementioned law, according to the purpose of the law and constitutional balances; the third stage is an examination of the protections available to the advertiser-defendant; The fourth stage is the examination of the amount of compensation (for the aforementioned stages, see, inter alia, Civil Appeal 4534/02 Schocken Chain Ltd. v. Herzikovich (March 4,2004; hereinafter - the "Schocken Chain Case")).
- In this lawsuit as well, I will examine the publication according to the above stages.
Most of the discussion will focus on the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, both because this is the main relationship referred to by the parties and because of my conclusion below that Channel 14 has protection under section 15(12) of the Prohibition of Defamation Law.