The Rothman Verdict: The Secret Alliance Between the Court and Channel 12

The verdict in which Judge Oren Silverman rejected the libel suit of MK Simcha Rothman against Guy Peleg and News 12 is not just another decision in a dispute between a politician and a journalist. It is an instructive lesson in how the old hegemony operates: the Ministry of Justice produces a version, News 12 turns it into public truth, and the court finally grants it the stamp of legal truth. Each institution strengthens the other, and each receives in return protection for its status.

Peleg attributed a shocking statement to Rothman: that the blood of Hillel and Yigal Yaniv, who were murdered in Huwara, is "redder" than the blood of the victims of October 7. Rothman denied this and claimed he said the opposite: that the blood of the previous victims of terror is no less red. Despite this, the judge preferred the version of three referents from the Ministry of Justice and determined that Peleg proved "I spoke the truth."

A categorical judicial determination that Rothman said these malicious things constitutes a radical leap in how the juristocracy backs Channel 12. And this ruling raises significant difficulties in its reasoning on the factual, legal, and especially public level.

---

The verdict itself admits that none of the referents presented the original transcript they made; that it is impossible to link the document on which Peleg relied to their transcripts; and that the defendants did not investigate the issue at all during their questioning. Despite this, the transcript whose origin was not proven receives reinforcing weight. In contrast, the testimony of the legal advisor to the Constitution Committee, Adv. Gur Blay, who backed Rothman's position, is pushed aside. Note the selective use of doubt: when the doubt concerns people of the system, it shrinks; when it concerns Rothman, it of course expands.

Even at the end of the verdict, the contradiction is revealed. Silverman refrained from ordering Rothman to pay costs, among other things due to the difficulties discovered between Peleg's affidavit and his testimony, his answers, and his conduct during the cross-examination. The judge notes that he had to intervene again and again because Peleg did not answer questions. And yet, that same Peleg receives the most definitive stamp possible: "I spoke the truth." The difficulties in his testimony are enough to prevent costs, but not enough to raise real doubt in his version.

---

And this sharply reflects the deep connection between Keshet 12 and the juristocracy. There is no need to imagine a dark room where judges, jurists, and editors coordinate messages. Because a hegemony does not need a conspiracy. It operates through a unity of interests, a common language, and a division of labor. So here is the deal: the Ministry of Justice provides the raw material; News 12 gives it power, drama, and public legitimacy; and the court grants legal validity retroactively. In return, Keshet 12 provides the legal system with its cognitive protection shell against any attempt to change the power structure.

Rothman is not just another politician to them. He is the man identified more than anyone with the attempt to reduce the power of the legal advisors, the State Attorney's Office, and the court. Therefore, a publication that harms him serves not only a media interest, but also an institutional interest — of the juristocracy and the old hegemony that is fighting to preserve its centers of power. And when the court adopts the version of the Ministry of Justice personnel, it is not just deciding a question of reliability; it is strengthening the system within which it itself operates.

News 12 personnel and their lawyers like to cultivate the image that they do not lose libel suits. Literally, this is not accurate: Guy Peleg has already been ordered to pay compensation in the past in a libel suit. But the image is more important than the facts. It signals to the public that there is no point in fighting against News 12, because the legal system will almost always provide them with a safety net.

And this, of course, has a basis. This was also the case in the Ilana Dayan and Captain R. affair. The District Court determined that Dayan libeled him and ordered her to pay compensation, but the Supreme Court reversed the result. In the additional hearing, the "truth for its time" doctrine was indeed rejected, but Dayan finally won the protection of "responsible journalism." Also in the case of Dr. Yifat Ben-Chai Segev, a lawsuit against Guy Peleg, Amalia Duek, and News 12 was rejected, after publications linked her testimony in the Netanyahu trial to a public appointment she received, and although the court determined that the publication was false, it gave News 12 legal protection for "responsible journalism," and in a highly exceptional manner ordered Ben-Chai Segev to pay heavy costs.

So pay attention to the pattern: when the central media outlet of the old hegemony clashes with someone who threatens that same hegemony, the courts repeatedly grant it an especially wide space of protection. This is how the sense of immunity is built, and this is how the old power structure is preserved.

Rothman must appeal. Not only for the sake of his good name, but to hold a mirror up to the entire mechanism. Because the struggle is no longer about one sentence said or not said. But this is a struggle over the question of who is allowed to determine what is truth in Israel: the public and its elected officials, or the old alliance between the court, the Ministry of Justice, and Keshet 12.

*Prof. Moshe Cohen-Eliya is an expert in constitutional law and founder of "Masad HaAretz - The Research Institute of the People of Israel."