With regard to the content of the publications, the second statement is perceived as a result or as a practical conclusion, derived from the first statement. It does not add an independent factual or normative layer, such as attributing an additional danger to the plaintiff, but rather constitutes reinforcement of that offensive message.
Therefore, the two sayings constitute one publication.
Intent to harm :
The expression "with the intention to harm" was heard by the Authority of Civil Appeal 5022/13 Rabbi Amnon Yitzhak v. Danon Communications Ltd. et al . (September 8,2013), where it was held that it is not sufficient to have expectations with a near degree of certainty that the publication will harm the victim, otherwise any publication that contains defamation will be considered a publication made with the intention of harming, but rather the existence of an additional element, of malicious conduct, of a "real" intention to harm, is required, based on the precedents established regarding the element of intention to harm the criminal offense of defamation. (Paragraph 8, p. 8; and see also the court's words District Other Municipal Applications 9712-12-13 "Kerr" Medical Services Ltd. v. A.M.L. American Laser Ltd. (April 13,2015), para. 29).
The intention to harm is learned from the content of the publication, the circumstances in which it was published, the background to its publication, the conduct of the advertiser before, during and after the publication, as well as from the testimonies Civil Case 9143-10-16 Dan Florence v. Adv. Sarit Nahari Hillel (July 18,2018); Civil Case 6727-09-20 Naama Kati'i v. Alon Bar (May 12,2024)). The fact that the publication was not made on the merits of things but on the merits of a person is also taken into account as one of the factors indicating an intention to harm (Civil Appeal 15267-09-17 Yigal Sarna v. Benjamin Netanyahu (January 28,2018)).
The fact that a publication is defamatory, or that the advertiser can expect that it will harm the victim, does not alone prove an intention to harm. The Supreme Court emphasized that if such views were sufficient, almost any publication that constitutes defamation would automatically be considered a publication made with the intention of harming. Therefore, malicious behavior or a "real" intention to harm is required. This distinction was also adopted in the civil context of section 7a(c), which allows for a ruling on double compensation without proof of damage. Civil Appeal Authority 5022/13 Rabbi Amnon Yitzhak v. Danon Communications Ltd. (September 8,2013)