Jerusalem Court Rejects Yair Netanyahu's Harassment Claim Against Haaretz Journalist

The Jerusalem Magistrate's Court dismissed Yair Netanyahu's request for a restraining order against Haaretz journalist Uri Misgav, ruling there was no factual basis for claims of threatening harassment. Netanyahu, who recently changed his registered name to "Yonatan Hon," accused Misgav of obsessive stalking, including real-time location tracking and exposing details that allegedly endangered his life. The court found that most of the cited incidents occurred months or years ago, making them unsuitable for urgent legal protection under harassment prevention laws.

Netanyahu argued that revealing his U.S. residence led to pro-Palestinian death threats and that publishing his flight details during wartime could jeopardize his safety. He also claimed the name change was due to serious security concerns and that the disclosure of his new name had spread to enemy channels, including an Iranian outlet. Misgav countered that the lawsuit was an attempt to silence journalistic criticism and bypass defamation and privacy laws, asserting he only published information after events concluded and based on legitimate journalistic sources.

Judge Daniel Mordechai-Dambitz reviewed 53 publications cited by Netanyahu, noting an average of fewer than two posts per month over three years, insufficient to constitute harassment. The court rejected the claim of real-time location disclosure except for one August 2024 post about a flight, which lacked evidence of endangering Netanyahu. It also ruled that the name change is public information accessible through tax authority databases and that Misgav took steps to protect Netanyahu's privacy by omitting his ID number.

The court highlighted the absence of any security service opinion, despite initial indications that the Shin Bet might submit one, suggesting that if the security services deemed the publications dangerous, they would have acted. The judge clarified that if Netanyahu believes he has grounds for civil remedies, he may pursue a civil lawsuit, but the harassment prevention law is not the proper venue. The request was denied without ordering costs.