Israeli Court Rules Against 'HaTzel' in Defamation Case

A Tel Aviv District Court on Monday dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by network activist Yoav Eliasi, known as "HaTzel" (Theצל), against journalist Raviv Drucker and Channel 13. Judge David Yitzhak ruled that while Drucker's statements might be considered defamation, the defendants had legal defenses.

Eliasi, who sought NIS 245,000 in damages, was ordered to pay the defendants NIS 25,000 in legal fees. The case stemmed from a February 22, 2024, broadcast where Drucker discussed Eliasi's receipt of an award from the Israel Police. Drucker referred to Eliasi's ties with National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, calling him "Ben-Gvir's external propaganda arm" and suggesting a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" relationship regarding Eliasi's involvement in a Tel Aviv volunteer emergency squad.

Eliasi claimed these remarks damaged his reputation, portraying him as acting for political gain rather than ideological conviction. Drucker and Channel 13 argued their statements constituted legitimate criticism of police conduct and the minister's ties to political activists, protected by defenses of truth and good-faith opinion.

The court found that while Drucker's words could potentially humiliate Eliasi, the defendants proved the factual basis for their publication. Evidence included WhatsApp conversations from February 2023, where Ben-Gvir wrote, "We need to enlist HaTzel for the campaign," and another participant noted, "Sent it to HaTzel." Eliasi subsequently posted support for Ben-Gvir.

Eliasi admitted to being close friends with Ben-Gvir and acknowledged that political figures sometimes ask for help with publications, but maintained he decides independently. The court concluded that the evidence, on the balance of probabilities, supported the claim that Eliasi acted as Ben-Gvir's external propaganda arm. The "you scratch my back" expression was deemed an opinion based on presented facts, not a proven quid pro quo.

The judge also ruled that Drucker was not obligated to seek Eliasi's response before the broadcast, as the factual elements were proven and the rest was opinion, thus not negating good-faith defense. The claim of "deliberate falsehood" was also dismissed due to Eliasi's failure to prove financial damages.