LEGAL BLOW TO SARA NETANYAHU: Court Rejects Bid to Dismiss Yair Golan’s $800,000 Defamation Lawsuit Over October 7 Remarks
An Israeli district court has rejected Sara Netanyahu’s attempt to have a multimillion-shekel defamation lawsuit filed against her by opposition politician Yair Golan dismissed, ruling that the prime minister’s wife cannot avoid potential responsibility for statements she made during a televised interview simply because a television station broadcast them.
The lawsuit, filed by Golan, chairman of Israel’s Democrats party and a retired IDF major general, seeks 2.55 million shekels, approximately $800,000, in damages over remarks Netanyahu made during an interview with Channel 14 concerning the October 7 Hamas massacre.
In its decision, the court rejected Netanyahu’s arguments for dismissing the case at the preliminary stage and ordered her to pay Golan 2,000 shekels in legal expenses.
The ruling allows the lawsuit to proceed but does not determine whether Netanyahu’s statements were defamatory or whether Golan is entitled to compensation.
At the center of the dispute are comments Netanyahu made during a Channel 14 interview that Golan alleges insinuated he had advance knowledge of the October 7 attack.
During the interview, Netanyahu stated, “Yair Golan was dressed and ready on the morning of October 7 when the prime minister did not know.”
Golan maintains that the remark suggested he possessed information about the impending Hamas assault before Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu or other Israeli officials were aware of what was unfolding.
His attorneys argue that the insinuation was false and seriously damaging to his reputation, particularly given the sensitivity surrounding the events of October 7.
The lawsuit was filed through attorneys Giora Erdinast, Almog Gil-Or, and Yarden Shochat of the EBN law firm after Netanyahu allegedly refused to apologize for her statements or retract them.
In seeking dismissal, Netanyahu argued that she had merely participated in an interview and that legal responsibility for publishing and distributing her remarks rested with third parties, including Channel 14, which aired the interview.
Her attorneys sought to distinguish between the individual who makes a statement during an interview and the media organization responsible for transmitting that statement to the public.
The district court rejected that distinction.
The judge determined that Netanyahu had agreed to be interviewed with the knowledge and understanding that her statements would be broadcast to a broad audience. Under those circumstances, the court found no basis for treating the interviewee’s participation and the broadcaster’s transmission as entirely separate acts for purposes of dismissing the lawsuit.
“There is no justification for an artificial separation between the aspect of ‘publication’ by the interviewee and the ‘publication’ by the interviewing and broadcasting body. These are two sides of the same coin and constitute a single publication,” the judge wrote in the decision.
The ruling addresses an important legal question concerning responsibility for statements made in media interviews. It establishes, at this preliminary stage, that an interviewee cannot obtain dismissal of a defamation claim solely by arguing that the broadcaster, rather than the speaker, was responsible for making the remarks public.
However, the court did not decide whether the specific statements attributed to Netanyahu meet the legal definition of defamation. That issue, along with the question of any damages, remains to be examined as the proceedings continue.
The lawsuit also extends beyond the allegations of defamation.
Golan is seeking civil compensation based on an additional claim involving an alleged violation of the criminal-law provision dealing with incitement to violence.
His legal team argues that Netanyahu’s statements should be examined in the context of their potential consequences and the public atmosphere surrounding the accusations.
The lawsuit further alleges that one of Netanyahu’s advisers viewed the Channel 14 interview before it was broadcast. Golan’s attorneys intend to rely on that allegation as part of their arguments concerning the circumstances in which the remarks were published.
Those assertions remain allegations presented by the plaintiffs. The court has not established that Netanyahu committed defamation or incitement, nor has it made findings concerning the alleged advance review of the interview.
Following the decision, Golan issued a sharply worded statement welcoming the rejection of Netanyahu’s dismissal request.
“Once again, it has been proven that the poison machine will stop at nothing — neither lies about the heroes of October 7 nor attempts to undermine public confidence in the judicial system. Today’s ruling is further proof that truth will triumph over lies. Those who incite violence and spread false accusations will not succeed in escaping responsibility. We will continue until justice is fully pursued in court, and we will defend the fighters for Israeli democracy with our own bodies,” Golan said.
