← All news
High-profile case

Yotam Haim’s Mother Sought 169,000 Shekels Over a Facebook Post

Iris Haim filed a defamation lawsuit in the Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court against columnist and jurist Dov Halbertal. The lawsuit was prompted by a post of his containing offensive statements, which was published following reports that Haim might be included on the Likud list.

Key facts

  • Plaintiff: Iris Haim
  • Defendant: Dov Halbertal
  • Court: Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court
  • Amount sought: 169,000 shekels
  • Publication: May 10
  • Warning letter before legal proceedings: May 26

What Happened

On May 10, Halbertal published a Facebook post about Iris Haim—the mother of Yotam Haim, who was abducted on October 7, 2023, and mistakenly shot dead by IDF soldiers on December 15 after escaping captivity. The writer used harsh expressions toward Haim and claimed that she was exploiting her son’s death for publicity and a political career. Haim responded that no one from Likud or any other party had approached her and that she would reject such an offer.

The Plaintiff’s Demands

The lawsuit for 169,000 shekels was filed in the Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court. Haim alleged that the post was published knowingly and with the intent to harm her, and that the image showing Yotam in the background intensified the “shock effect.” Her attorneys, Asaf Sharaf and Nili Schatz, also noted that Halbertal published the text during an especially sensitive period for her.

The Defendant’s Position

On May 26, Halbertal was sent a warning letter before legal proceedings were initiated. In his response, he did not deny writing the statements but said that after a day or two he concluded that the wording was too harsh and deleted the post on his own initiative. He claimed that the post received only hundreds of views and was widely circulated only after Haim’s response; he also offered to apologize again, meet, and try to resolve the dispute.

What the Court Ruled

The court has not yet ruled on the merits of the dispute. The date of the first hearing is expected to be set later, and the case number and exact filing date of the lawsuit are not specified in the source. Therefore, the claims regarding defamation, intent to cause harm, and the extent of the post’s circulation are currently the parties’ positions and not facts established by the court.

What this means for you

A social media post may provide grounds for a civil lawsuit even if the writer later deleted it and offered to apologize. When examining disputes of this kind, the court may consider the content, context, extent of exposure to the post, and the writer’s presumed intent, but no such examination has yet taken place in this case.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings

Latest legal news