Simcha Rothman Libel Lawsuit Against Channel 12 Dismissed by Court

The legal battle centers on a broadcast from November 2023, when Channel 12 reported that Knesset Member Simcha Rothman used a provocative formulation during a closed-door preparatory session with security officials. According to the original broadcast by journalist Guy Peleg, Rothman stated that the blood of brothers Hallel and Yagel Yaniv, who were murdered in Hawara, was redder than the blood of the victims of October 7.

Rothman denied the statements, filing a defamation lawsuit totaling more than one million shekels against the broadcaster, its chief executive, the journalist, and various social media users. He argued that the report constituted a false and inflammatory blood libel that distorted his actual critique of law enforcement policies. Yet, the Jerusalem Magistrates’ Court reached a conclusion that vindicated the defendants.

Judge Oren Silverman Rules the Report Protected by Truth

Presiding over the case, Deputy Chief Magistrate Oren Silverman determined that while attributing such an inflammatory quote objectively constituted defamation—as it could expose an individual to hatred, ridicule, or contempt—the defendants successfully proved the defense of truth under the standard of the balance of probabilities. The court gave weight to the testimony of three female lawyers from the Ministry of Justice who attended the meeting.

The court found these witnesses to be objective, reliable, and consistent, establishing that Rothman did indeed utter the phrase or words to that effect during a heated exchange before later walking back the phrasing and clarifying his intent. Real-time notes taken during the session further corroborated the testimony, recording that Rothman made the comparison before other participants protested, prompting him to clarify that he meant to argue the Yaniv brothers’ murders could have been prevented if authorities had listened to him earlier.

I found a place to trust the testimonies. Judge Oren Silverman, Jerusalem Magistrates’ Court

The judicial ruling also addressed the public interest inherent in the reporting. The court underscored that because Rothman serves as the chairman of the Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee discussing critical security legislation shortly after the outbreak of war, the public interest in the disclosure was clear-cut.

Judicial Scrutiny Over Rothman’s Legal Strategy and Conduct

The court did not limit its findings to the verification of the quote itself, offering criticism regarding how the lawmaker handled the litigation. Judge Silverman noted that Rothman’s initial blanket denials and his failure to engage substantively with the journalist before publication contributed to the justification of the broadcast.

According to the judgment, when Guy Peleg approached Rothman for a response prior to airing the segment, the lawmaker offered a sweeping denial rather than providing a constructive explanation of the context. Furthermore, the court noted that testimony provided by the plaintiff during the proceedings remained evasive when questioned about subsequent checks he claimed to have performed. Conversely, the testimony brought by Rothman—including that of the committee’s legal adviser, who admitted to having no independent recollection of the exact words spoken—failed to dismantle the factual foundation established by the defense.

Despite dismissing the lawsuit in its entirety, the court decided against ordering Rothman to pay legal costs, citing unusual procedural conduct by all parties involved throughout the litigation.

Dismissal Extends to Social Media Users and Amplifies Press Freedom Protections

The legal defeat extended beyond the primary media defendants. The court also threw out the lawsuits filed against individual users on social media who shared or commented on the Channel 12 report. Judge Silverman ruled that these online responses constituted legitimate expressions of opinion within a public debate, noting that public figures must absorb a wider scope of criticism than private individuals.

Reacting to the ruling, Rothman issued a public statement arguing that the judiciary continues to shield mainstream outlets while penalizing conservative figures. The lawmaker maintained that the legal arguments revolved around whether he asserted that one set of victims’ blood was redder or merely argued that it was no less red than another, backed by recordings and legal counsel testimony.

For the journalistic outlet and its legal team, the verdict stands as a legal validation of the truth defense and a reinforcement of press protections in political reporting.