The President of the Central Magistrate's Court, Menachem Mizrahi, ruled today (Sunday) that Boaz Golan, a Channel 14 presenter, defamed Naftali Bennett in three different publications.
Mizrahi ruled that although Golan did not prove the "I spoke the truth" defense in the publications, due to certain factual inaccuracies that occurred in his publication - Golan is entitled to the "good faith defense" and therefore Bennett's lawsuit should be dismissed.
He determined that Bennett would pay legal costs as well as attorney fees in the amount of 10,000 shekels + VAT.
Initially, Bennett issued a statement to the media, titled “Victory for Naftali Bennett over Channel 14 presenter Boaz Golan,” but a review of the ruling suggests that the final outcome of the legal proceedings is different from the way it was presented to the public by Bennett.
Boaz Golan responded: "Bennett will pay me 10,000 NIS plus VAT after his claim against me was rejected. As I have claimed all along, I accurately published what was conveyed to me by the IDF Spokesperson and the Golani Brigade Spokesperson - and the President of the Rishon Lezion Court, Judge Menachem Mizrahi, ruled that I am entitled to the defense of good faith.".
He added and quipped: "I hope Bennett's signature on the check is not equal to his signature in my studio that he will not sit with Mansour Abbas and will not rotate with Lapid.".
Bennett responded: "Another victory for the truth over the poison machine. Mr. Golan lied. We will not stop fighting for the truth.".
The confrontation took place after Golan posted a tweet on his X account on November 19, 2024: "Bennett distributed a video and wrote that he spoke with fighters at the Golani Air Base. The real story is, as the IDF also claims - Bennett arrived at the air base and asked to go inside. He was refused and was told that this was against orders and he was not allowed to enter. Bennett spotted recruits making out outside the base and simply approached them, confused their minds and made a video.".
The ruling determined that Bennett arrived at the meeting "in a planned and pre-approved manner," after his office contacted officials at the Golani Air Base and received permission to hold the meeting outside the base area.
The judge emphasized that the publications portrayed Bennett as someone who tried to enter the base without permission, was refused by the army, and took advantage of a chance encounter with soldiers to produce a political video. He said that this is a description that could humiliate Bennett and make him a target of contempt and ridicule, and therefore constitutes defamation.
Later in the ruling, the court rejected Golan's "I spoke the truth" claim. The judge ruled that it had not been proven that Bennett arrived without permission or was denied entry, and that the overall picture presented in the publications did not match the reality proven during the hearing.
However, the court accepted Golan's alternative defense - the defense of good faith. The judge noted that prior to the publication, Golan relied on information received from IDF spokespeople, including the Golani Brigade spokeswoman and the IDF spokesman's response, and therefore believed in real time that the information he had was correct.
The judge wrote that although Golan was not accurate in his publications, this was a publication made as part of journalistic criticism of a public figure, and that in the circumstances of the case he is entitled to the protection of good faith stipulated by law.
