Compare full coverage across 7 outlets
Court Upholds Channel 12’s Version in Defamation Case Against MK Rotman, Highlighting Media-Judiciary Alliance
Editorial illustration generated by baba News — not a photograph of the event.
Politics13:28 · 3h ago

Court Upholds Channel 12’s Version in Defamation Case Against MK Rotman, Highlighting Media-Judiciary Alliance

WallaCenter
Translated & summarized from Walla by baba
The story · English

A recent ruling by Judge Oren Silverman dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by MK Simcha Rotman against journalist Guy Peleg and Channel 12, underscoring the deep alliance between Israel’s Ministry of Justice, Channel 12, and the judiciary. The case centered on Peleg’s claim that Rotman made a provocative statement comparing the blood of terror victims from different attacks, which Rotman denied, asserting he said the opposite. Despite Rotman’s denial, the court accepted the Ministry of Justice officials’ version over Rotman’s, ruling that Peleg had spoken the truth.

The judgment revealed significant evidentiary and procedural inconsistencies, including the absence of original impressions from the Ministry’s representatives and a lack of thorough investigation by the defendants. Nevertheless, these weaknesses did not prevent the court from granting Peleg a categorical judicial endorsement. The ruling also noted contradictions in Peleg’s testimony and his evasiveness during cross-examination but still refrained from ordering Rotman to pay legal costs.

This case exemplifies what the author calls the "old hegemony," a symbiotic relationship where the Ministry of Justice crafts narratives, Channel 12 amplifies them to the public, and the courts provide legal validation. This alliance protects their institutional power and marginalizes figures like Rotman, who challenge the influence of legal advisors, prosecutors, and the judiciary. The article highlights similar past cases where Channel 12 received broad legal protection despite controversies, reinforcing a pattern of judicial deference to the media establishment.

The author argues that Rotman’s appeal is crucial not only to restore his reputation but also to challenge the entrenched power structure controlling the definition of truth in Israel. The struggle transcends a single defamation claim, reflecting a broader conflict over who holds authority over public truth: elected officials and citizens or the intertwined forces of the legal system, Ministry of Justice, and dominant media outlets.

Professor Moshe Cohen-Eliya, a constitutional law expert and founder of the research institute Masad Haaretz, authored the analysis.

Read the original at Walla
Full coverage · 7 outlets
57% right-leaningFirst: Srugim · Jul 29

The same event, reported separately by each outlet. Open a few to compare what different newsrooms emphasize — and what they leave out.

Center 3Right 4
Related stories · 5

Not the same event — other stories that share this one’s people, places, or theme: background, reactions, and follow-ups.

Open the live terminal