Lawsuit Against Haaretz: Relative of Shin Bet Chief Reaches Settlement
After the uncle of the Shin Bet chief demanded 500,000 shekels in compensation, alleging a smear campaign, the legal dispute against Haaretz has officially concluded following a mediation process.
The legal proceedings between Rabbi Eliyahu Zini and the newspaper Haaretz and two of its reporters have officially concluded, after the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement through a mediation process. The joint notice filed recently renders further examination of the lawsuit unnecessary.
The affair began last January, when the lawsuit was filed by Rabbi Zini, who is the uncle of the Shin Bet chief, Ronen Bar. As part of his claims, the compensation demand stood at 500,000 shekels, alongside a firm demand that the newspaper publish a correction and denial of the allegations made against him.
At the center of the lawsuit was Rabbi Zini's claim that a series of articles published in the newspaper attributed to him actions that never occurred. Among other things, it was claimed that he was credited with writing an article in the book "Baruch HaGever" and praising the massacre at the Cave of the Patriarchs, alongside various positions that he claimed he never expressed.
According to Rabbi Zini, these were completely false publications that caused severe damage to his reputation. He defined these publications as part of a "smear campaign" intended to harm his family against the backdrop of his nephew's appointment as head of the Shin Bet.
Furthermore, the statement of claim explicitly noted that the rabbi's name does not appear in the list of authors of the mentioned book. Regarding the content itself, it was explained that it was a short halachic opinion he wrote back in 1995 for a different legal proceeding, which was incorporated into the book by its editors without any connection to the massacre at the Cave of the Patriarchs.
In addition, it was submitted to the court that these publications were quoted in other media outlets and distributed on social networks while presenting the data as established facts. Rabbi Zini argued that the defendants could not rely on the defenses of good faith or "truth in publication." Now, at the end of the mediation process, the parties have announced that they reached an understanding, and the case has come to an end.
