Tel Aviv Court Orders Damages in Shikma Bressler Defamation Suit
A Tel Aviv court ordered Esther Yochai to pay over 50,000 shekels in damages and legal costs to Shikma Bressler over defamatory social media posts claiming Bressler aided the October 7 attack.
Tel Aviv Court Rules on Defamation Lawsuit Filed by Shikma Bressler
The Tel Aviv-Jaffa Magistrate's Court has partially upheld a defamation lawsuit filed by Shikma Bressler against Esther Yochai, ordering Yochai to pay 40,953 shekels in damages alongside 10,000 shekels in legal costs. In addition, the court ordered the removal within 14 days of the publications deemed defamatory and unprotected by legal defenses.
The lawsuit stemmed from a series of posts uploaded by Yochai to social media and shared in a WhatsApp group following the October 7 onslaught. The posts alleged, among other things, that Bressler had prior knowledge of the attack, consented to it, and even assisted Hamas. One publication featured a manipulated image of Bressler dressed in prison garb under the heading "Guilty: Treason against the Homeland.
Judicial Review of Public Discourse versus Defamation
Judge Guy Forer examined the publications through the lens of how a reasonable person would interpret them. The verdict noted that not all statements constituted defamation; for instance, the phrase "Shikma Bressler's terrorist organization" was deemed metaphorical rather than a factual allegation that Bressler heads a terrorist group in the criminal sense.
However, regarding posts claiming Bressler knew in advance about the October 7 attack, agreed to it, or aided it, the court reached a different conclusion. The judge ruled that a reasonable reader could interpret these as factual assertions amounting to defamation. Yochai attempted to invoke the "truth in publication" defense, but the court ruled that the central allegations were unsubstantiated by evidence.
"The court emphasizes that a subjective belief in the truth of the statements does not replace the requirement to prove factual allegations made in publications," Judge Forer stated.
Final Ruling and Compensation
Ultimately, the judge determined that for the purpose of calculating damages, the relevant posts should be treated as a single publication due to their similarity and the timeframe in which they appeared. Because widespread distribution was not proven and malicious intent to harm was not established, no doubled damages were awarded.
