In a move that has sent shockwaves through Israel's media landscape, Channel 12 News has initiated legal proceedings against veteran journalist Eli Zipori, demanding a public apology and NIS 1 million ($265,000) in compensation. The lawsuit stems from Zipori's repeated labeling of the network as "Al Jazeera 12" across social media platforms.
As reported by Walla News and the Times of Israel, at the heart of the dispute lies Tzipori's provocative comparison of Channel 12 to Al Jazeera, the Qatari network recently banned in Israel for alleged propaganda activities on behalf of Hamas. The news company's legal representatives argue that this comparison is not only false but "extremely severe defamation" aimed at undermining the integrity of Channel 12 and its journalists. "While our journalists risk their lives to cover this conflict, Mr. Tzipori's reckless statements threaten to erode public trust in vital news services," a Channel 12 spokesperson stated off the record.
Zipori, known for his pro-Netanyahu stance and investigative journalism, has not limited his criticism to Channel 12. He also routinely refers to Channel 13 as "Al Jazeera 13" and the Kan public broadcaster as "Al Jazeera 11" in his social media posts. His accusations range from participation in a "criminal campaign" led by the Prosecutor's Office to misreporting on the costs of reserve soldiers during the war.
This legal action comes on the heels of a separate defamation lawsuit filed against Zipori in December by Hadas Klein, a key witness in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's corruption trial. Klein accused Zipori of running a smear campaign against her during her testimony.
Responding to the lawsuit, Zipori took to X (formerly Twitter), stating, "Al Jazeera 12 is trying to shut me up." His lawyer, Ohad Mehraz, criticized the timing of the lawsuit, saying, "It's unfortunate that during a war, the news company is busy trying to silence a reporter and his sacred rights to freedom of speech."
As the Israeli media grapples with questions of objectivity and free speech during times of national crisis, this case promises to set a significant precedent. It highlights the growing tensions between traditional media outlets and their critics in the age of social media, while also raising questions about the boundaries of journalistic critique and the responsibility of public figures during wartime.