Netanyahu Sues Lawyer Over Submarine Deal Interview; News Channel Responds
Translated & summarized from Ice by baba
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is suing attorney Eliad Shraga for defamation over statements made in a March 2025 i24NEWS interview, seeking 160,000 shekels. The lawsuit concerns Shraga's claim that Netanyahu received 25 million shekels in the submarine affair. i24NEWS has responded to Shraga's third-party claim against them, arguing Shraga is solely responsible for his words. A judge previously rejected Shraga's attempt to dismiss the lawsuit, stating the issue was not fully litigated in prior proceedings.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is suing attorney Eliad Shraga for 160,000 shekels over defamation.
- The lawsuit stems from Shraga's March 2025 interview on i24NEWS claiming Netanyahu received 25 million shekels in the submarine affair.
- i24NEWS argues Shraga, an experienced lawyer, is solely responsible for his statements made during the interview.
- Shraga had sought indemnification from i24NEWS if found liable, citing the channel's editing and broadcast.
- A judge previously rejected Shraga's bid to dismiss the case, finding the issue not fully adjudicated in prior proceedings.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's defamation lawsuit against attorney Eliad Shraga, filed over statements made in a March 2025 interview with i24NEWS, has seen the news channel submit its response to the court. Shraga had previously filed a third-party notice against i24NEWS's operators, seeking indemnification if he were found liable to Netanyahu.
The core of the dispute centers on Shraga's assertion during an interview on the "Cabinet Shishi" program that Netanyahu "woke up with 25 million shekels in his pocket" in connection with the submarine affair. Netanyahu is suing Shraga for 160,000 shekels, claiming these statements are "an absolute lie" and constitute high-level defamation, requesting damages and an injunction against further publication.
In its response, i24NEWS argues that Shraga, an experienced lawyer who has written a book on the submarine affair, is solely responsible for his words, which he uttered voluntarily and in his own voice during the interview. The channel contends that Shraga was invited to express his views on public matters central to his expertise.
Shraga's defense, filed in June 2026, had previously asserted that the editing and broadcast of the interview were the responsibility of the channel's staff. He also claimed defenses under defamation law, including truth, and initially sought to have the lawsuit dismissed, arguing the financial aspects of the submarine and stock affairs had already been adjudicated.
However, Judge Amir Dahan rejected the dismissal request, ruling that a judicial determination in an administrative proceeding is not equivalent to one in a civil case, and the specific question of Netanyahu receiving millions in the submarine deal was not fully addressed in the High Court of Justice. Shraga was subsequently ordered to file a defense, reiterating his reliance on facts discussed in the submarine and stock affairs, including findings attributed to former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit and a High Court ruling.
Not the same event — other stories that share this one’s people, places, or theme: background, reactions, and follow-ups.
