Haaretz Newspaper Rejects Netanyahu's Demand for Apology and Compensation

Haaretz newspaper has rejected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's demand for the removal of an article, an apology, and NIS 1 million in compensation. The article in question pertains to intelligence warnings that preceded the October 7th Hamas attacks.

In a response letter sent by Haaretz's lawyers, they stated that their clients "will not be deterred from revealing the truth, even in court." The newspaper's legal team argued that the publication was the result of in-depth journalistic research based on sources, addressing a matter of paramount public interest. They noted that questions surrounding the pre-attack warnings and the response to them have been a focal point of public discourse for approximately three years.

The lawyers further contended that Netanyahu himself recently raised the issue of pre-October 7th warnings as part of his election campaign. They dismissed accusations of "national fraud," "polluting the democratic discourse," and "improper influence on elections" directed at the newspaper, asserting that Netanyahu's demand does not indicate any violated law or legal basis for his claims.

Haaretz's response emphasized that publishing a public interest investigation into the Prime Minister's conduct before a war is a function of free journalism, even during an election period. They rejected any attempt to attribute political or malicious motives to the publication, stating that no evidence was presented to support such claims. The newspaper also highlighted that Netanyahu's response was sought before publication and that his denial, calling the report a "complete lie," was given prominent and fair coverage, providing the public with the full picture.

Netanyahu had initially demanded NIS 1 million for "settlement purposes," along with the article's removal and an apology, threatening a lawsuit exceeding NIS 2.5 million. Haaretz's lawyers characterized these demands as an attempt to "silence journalistic criticism" and firmly rejected them. They also addressed the inclusion of journalist Uri Misgav, stating he had no connection to the article in question and would seek costs if unjustifiably included in any lawsuit.