See also recently, Civil Appeals Authority 65005-03-26 Vattori v. Harari (August 12,2026):
"Words of 'opinion, ' as their name implies, express the subjective opinion of the person who says them, and nothing more. They do not describe reality as it is, and therefore do not fall within the realm of truth or falsehood. As a result, expressions of opinion, which are perceived as such by those who read or hear them, cannot, as a rule, reach the level of 'slander.'"
The author, Uri Shenhar, offers a similar test for distinguishing between "fact" and "opinion":
"Factual publication describes reality as it has been perceived by the senses. An opinion is a publication that describes a thought about reality" (Defamation Law, 2024, pp. 612-613).
- The answer to the question of whether a particular publication is a 'fact' or an 'opinion' is according to the meaning of the words in the eyes of the ordinary person. In this context, the Honorable Justice Sohlberg inthe New Contract Matter refers to and quotes from Civil Appeal 723/74 Haaretz Newspaper Ltd. Israel Electric Company Ltd. (February 24,1977). In order to decide on the aforementioned classification, it is necessary to examine the message received from the publication; The legal commentator is required to examine, inter alia, whether it is a figurative or metaphorical or exaggerated language or any other language that constitutes a way of expressing the advertiser, in order to avoid disproportionate harm to freedom of expression and freedom of the press.
- In order to decide this dispute, I have watched the video of August 9,2025 (which was submitted on March 22,2026) several times. As detailed below, I do not accept the position of counsel for the defendants that the defendant's words in relation to the plaintiff's military service should be regarded as an expression of opinion in the context of a heated public debate.
- As a preliminary remark, I will note that I found that the defendants' position is, in practice, a legal attempt to 'legitimize' the publication retroactively, after in real time the defendants recognized, even if implicitly, that the defendant's words were factual erroneous publication that may constitute defamation, and therefore, upon receipt of a warning letter, the amendment was published as defined above.
And to the body of the dispute:
- The publication according to which the plaintiff in fact evaded military service can be classified as "truth/false" (in this case - a lie). Therefore, the publication is not an "opinion" but rather a "fact" (erroneous) and is not protected under the protection of section 15(4) of the Prohibition of Defamation Law.
- There is no 'borderline case' or a case that is in the 'gray area' between an opinion and a fact, but rather a (erroneous) fact. Therefore, the circumstances in which the words were said carry little weight in classifying them as facts/opinions; and in any case, an examination of the circumstances does not lead to the conclusion that we are dealing with an "opinion." I will explain.
- Contrary to the defendants' position, even though the publication was 'integrated' into the defendant's monologue in which he conducts a lively and incisive media debate about government policy, his words incorporated a erroneous fact, of a clearly personal nature into a subject that is perceived as of great importance to the personal biography of a reasonable person in the State of Israel (i.e., service or evasion from the IDF).
There is no legal difficulty in the defendant combining various arguments in order to strengthen his position and convince his viewers. This includes no difficulty in the argument that the 'weight' of the things that should be attributed to a media person who did not serve in the army is low. However - and this is the main point - when the defendant incorporates in his words an erroneous data (which has not been examined) and harms the plaintiff, he publishes a defamatory statement that is not covered by the protection of this section.
- The words "I think..." The defendant's words, which the defendants' counsel referred to in order to strengthen their position, do not change the conclusion regarding the correct classification of the publication.
From watching the video clip, the impression obtained from the defendant's words is that the defendant presents the plaintiff, in practice, as evading military service in order to harm him personally (in addition to criticizing the plaintiff's position on its merits), and for this purpose he presents information that the plaintiff did not serve or served only two days in the IDF.
- Similarly, I cannot agree with the defendants' argument that since the defendant's words were said on a 'panel opinion' program and not on a news broadcast, the reasonable viewer understands that the publication is an opinion and not a fact.
Even when an opinion program host expresses an opinion on a subject that is publicly charged, he can incorporate factual data to strengthen his position, and even in these contexts, a proper balance is required between freedom of expression and the press, on the one hand, and maintaining a good name on the other.