"Haredim" in quotation marks and "so-called Torah scholars": The article that cost the Haredi newspaper 230,000 shekels
Four Haredi residents of Ma'ale Amos sued the newspaper after an article presented them as "Haredim" in quotation marks and as those who are "considered so-called Torah scholars." The court determined that the publication was intended to humiliate them within the community, criticized the fact that their response was not requested, and ruled: "There is no need to defame the plaintiffs in order to disagree with their actions." "HaModia" will pay 230,000 shekels in damages and expenses.
The Jerusalem Magistrate's Court accepted a defamation lawsuit filed by four Haredi residents of Ma'ale Amos against the newspaper "HaModia," following an article that, among other things, cast doubt on their Haredi status and their standing as "Torah scholars" (Bnei Torah). Judge Dorit Feinstein rejected the newspaper's claims of "truth in publication" defense and determined that the style of the article was "very harsh and disparaging."
This concerns an article that dealt with a dispute over the allocation of buildings for two kindergartens in Ma'ale Amos. According to the verdict, a kindergarten where children from the Lithuanian public studied, which was a state-religious kindergarten and approved by the Ministry of Education, operated in a mobile structure without a protected space (MAMAD). Conversely, a kindergarten where girls from the Hasidic public studied, which operated in Yiddish and was defined as a recognized but non-official institution, operated in a permanent structure.
The situation sparked opposition among the Lithuanian public. The parents' committee approached residents and asked them to file objections to the council, among other things, on the grounds that the Hasidic kindergarten was operating without a license and in violation of the building plan. The anonymous letter even noted that the opposition to the kindergarten was part of a struggle against the entry of Hasidim into Ma'ale Amos.
Against the backdrop of this struggle, in September 2024, "HaModia" published an article under the headline "Shock in the Haredi community in Ma'ale Amos," and the sub-headline claimed that "'Haredi' elements are working to prevent standard buildings for kindergartens for the Hasidic public."
In the article, Zvi Olsker, Yehonatan Glassner, Yitzhak Glazer, and Aryeh Kahan were mentioned by name as those who acted against the allocation of the buildings — and the four filed a defamation lawsuit for 400,000 shekels as a result. However, the court determined that the article exceeded legitimate criticism of the public struggle. Among other things, the plaintiffs were referred to as "Haredim" in quotation marks, and it was written that they are considered "so-called 'Torah scholars'." The judge determined that these are expressions that could humiliate and degrade them precisely within the society to which they belong.
"The use of double quotation marks and the word 'so-called' was intended to humiliate and degrade the plaintiffs within their community," the verdict stated. The court rejected "HaModia's" claim that the labels reflected the fact that the plaintiffs turned to civil courts and not to Torah law (Din Torah), and even noted that the newspaper itself conducts proceedings in the courts.
The judge was also firm regarding the overall impression created by the article: "The general impression in this case is harsh," she wrote, and determined that from the headline to the content, the plaintiffs were presented as those who "pretend to be Haredim, pretend to be Torah scholars, and act against Haredi education."
A significant part of the verdict was devoted to how the newspaper acted before the publication. The court determined that "HaModia" did not approach any of the four plaintiffs to receive their response before publishing the article. "This conduct is inappropriate and directly contradicts the ethics code of newspapers," the judge determined. A letter sent to the newspaper after the publication with a demand for an apology also received no response.
The judge also criticized the newspaper's choice to deal with the religious identity of the plaintiffs instead of the dispute itself. According to her, it was possible to cover the struggle between the Hasidim and the Lithuanians and the question of the allocation of buildings "without referring to the plaintiffs as those who are not Haredi enough or not Haredi at all." "The newspaper did not present the news in a balanced manner," it was determined in the verdict, "and there was no need to defame the plaintiffs in order to disagree with their actions and position."
The court distinguished between one of the plaintiffs, Yitzhak Glazer, and the other three. While the others held public positions in the settlement or the council, Glazer did not hold an official position. The court determined that the newspaper did not prove at all that he was connected to the public interest that the article was about and did not even show that it took reasonable measures to verify if the publications about him were true.
Accordingly, the highest compensation was awarded to Glazer — 70,000 shekels. The other three plaintiffs will receive 40,000 shekels each. In addition, "HaModia" was ordered to pay 35,000 shekels in attorney's fees and 5,000 shekels in court expenses — for a total of 230,000 shekels.
On behalf of the Ma'ale Amos settlement committee, it was stated: "The court's ruling speaks for itself. We are happy that the other Haredi media outlets did not publish the fake news in question. We thank Dr. Harel Arnon and his team for the exemplary representation."
