Defamation lawsuit by Neve Sha'anan committee chairman against committee members dismissed • "The defendants acted in good faith"

(live here) – The Haifa Magistrate's Court dismissed today, Thursday, 22/5/25, the defamation lawsuit filed by Neve Sha'anan Committee Chairman Yaakov Shitrit against several members of the neighborhood committee. Shitrit claimed that the defendants distributed letters containing defamation and caused him personal and public damage, but the court ruled that the defense of good faith should be applied to them, since they acted within the framework of their public duties and made claims that can be verified. The plaintiff will pay the defendants the legal costs.

According to the lawsuit, on 15/7/21, Sheetrit served as chairman of the Neve Sha'anan committee. According to him, the defendants, who were themselves committee members, published a series of letters that included defamation, and distributed them to senior officials in the Haifa municipality as well as local media outlets. The letters included claims that his appointment was illegal, that he did not summon the committee to meetings, and that he was operating with public funds without approval. Sheetrit claimed that these were lies written in bad faith and intended to harm his name and status, and therefore demanded compensation in the amount of 100 NIS.

The first publication, sent on 2/9/21, was sent by the defendant Mimi Peretz, and included serious allegations against Sheetrit. The letter was distributed to a broad mailing list that included the mayor, the legal advisor, deputy mayors, council members, and more. It claimed that "Shetrit is managing public funds as he pleases," and that his appointment is illegal. According to Sheetrit, some of the signatories were not aware of the letter at all and disavowed it, among other things by contacting the media outlets that refrained from publishing the content.

Defendants' claims: We acted in accordance with our public duty

The defendants claimed in their defense that they acted in good faith and in a businesslike manner. According to them, this is a legitimate criticism of the way the committee is managed, the improper appointment of the committee chairman, and the lack of transparency in the management of the funds. According to them, Sheetrit was appointed by the mayor without a regulated process, did not hold meetings, and did not respond to repeated requests from committee members.

Defendant Mimi Peretz claimed in her testimony that during Sheetrit's term, committee members were excluded, were not invited to meetings, did not receive financial information, and no meetings were held. She herself, she said, was removed from the committee's internal communication groups, and was not allowed to enter the committee's offices. After a change of government in the municipality, a new chairperson was appointed and she returned to work on the committee. She said the letter was sent in good faith and with good intentions to provoke an investigation.

Defendant Idan Emrich also testified that he served as a committee member for 15 years, and expressed opposition to Sheetrit's appointment. According to him, there were no allegations of illegal use of the funds, but it was claimed that he handled them "on his own initiative." The letter they sent was drafted in consultation with an attorney on behalf of the committee, and was sent only to the relevant authorities in the municipality.

Judge Uri Goldkorn analyzed the publications and determined that they were indeed "publications" as defined in the Defamation Law, but at the same time, it is necessary to examine whether one of the protections in the law is met. He distinguished between the claim that the appointment is illegal, which does not constitute defamation since it is subject to legal review, and the claim that Sheetrit "disposes of public funds as he pleases," which may indeed be considered defamation.

The defendants acted in their capacity as members of the committee.

The judge ruled that even if it was defamation, the defendants acted in their capacity as committee members, raised specific allegations that could be verified, and contacted authorized authorities. Therefore, the defense of good faith under Section 15 of the law applies.

In the ruling, the court ruled that it was rejecting the lawsuit, and ordered Sheetrit to pay each of the defendants attorney's fees in the amount of NIS 10,000, plus linkage differences and interest as required by law.

A committee member from Peretz's time told the paper:

"The reasoned ruling of the Honorable Judge Uri Goldkorn is an important legal recognition and the right to raise legitimate criticism of the management of public funds. The court recognized that our appeal to the chairman of the committee in Neve Sha'anan was justified and stemmed from a genuine concern for transparency and proper management of public funds."

The win reinforces the important democratic principle of the public's right to know and scrutinize those who manage their finances. When there is a suspicion of a lack of transparency or improper management of public funds, community members have not only the right but also a moral obligation to raise the issue.

The court clarified that substantive and well-founded criticism of the management of public funds is not defamation, especially when it is directed internally to the relevant parties with the aim of promoting transparency and accountability. This victory is also a clear message to public bodies that they are required to act transparently and be prepared to deal with legitimate criticism from members of the community on whose behalf they act.

As a woman who works for justice, and volunteers and spends her money on behalf of others, I will not allow this to happen. And "the claim does not constitute defamation. It is a factual claim that also raises legal claims that can be examined," a quote from the ruling.

Committee member Idan Amrich told the paper:

"The ruling emphasizes the right of elected officials to raise legitimate criticism of the conduct of the body's management and its members, especially on issues related to transparency and proper management of the body's resources, and even more so when it comes to public funds intended for the welfare of neighborhood residents."

From the start, this was a stupid proceeding whose sole purpose was to sue to silence members who raised legitimate criticism. The ruling shows that the courts do not take such lawsuits lightly and that they fully understand the importance of maintaining the principles of transparency and accountability in public bodies.

"The real losers from this entire process are the residents of Neve Sha'anan because the energy was directed towards unnecessary struggles. I hope that the new committee management will free up the resources and energy of members who come to volunteer and contribute to the community in a better and more constructive way."

 An Israeli movement accompanying the neighborhood committee reported:"The victory in court is an important victory for freedom of expression and the right of neighborhood residents to criticize the conduct of those entrusted with public funds. We congratulate the new neighborhood committee for its courageous stand for transparency, accountability, and true representation of the residents. We will continue to cooperate with the committee to promote initiatives that will bring real benefit to neighborhood residents, out of a commitment to the values ​​of local democracy and good governance."