Judge Rules (2021): MDA Didn’t Kill — But United Hatzalah’s Words Did Damage
Court finds UH ran smear campaign against Israel’s national rescue service, orders hefty payout.
As questions continue to mount about United Hatzalah’s claims and financial reporting, we believe it is in the public interest to revisit the organization’s past conduct and the way it was scrutinized in court. That is why we are publishing the actual text of a 2021 Tel Aviv District Court ruling, in which Judge Naftali Shilo examined competing defamation lawsuits between Magen David Adom and United Hatzalah. The judgment offers rare, detailed insight into how United Hatzalah presented itself, how it attacked its rivals, and how the court ultimately assessed the credibility of its statements.
Tel Aviv – Jaffa District Court
Civil Case 40739-12-18
Magen David Adom in Israel et al. v. United Hatzalah of Israel et al.
Before: Honorable Judge Naftali Shilo
Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant:
Magen David Adom in Israel (MDA)
Represented by attorneys Ran Kedem, Amit Gelbart, and Yaara Shavit
(Herzog, Fox, Neeman & Co.)
Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs:
United Hatzalah of Israel
Eli Beer
Moshe Teitelbaum
Moti Elmaliach
Represented by attorneys Ori Shenhar and Yair Leshem
(Hadad, Roth & Co.)
Judgment
This case concerns a lawsuit filed by the plaintiff for compensation of NIS 2,600,000 in respect of publications made by defendants 2–4, alleged to constitute defamation; and a counterclaim filed by defendant 1 seeking NIS 568,080 in damages for publications made by the plaintiff, also alleged to constitute defamation.
A. General Background
The plaintiff, Magen David Adom in Israel (“MDA”), is a statutory corporation operating under the Magen David Adom Law, 1950. It serves as Israel’s national rescue organization. MDA is a nonprofit corporation employing approximately 2,000 staff and operating a volunteer corps of more than 25,000.
Defendant 1, United Hatzalah of Israel (“United Hatzalah”), is a nonprofit association founded in 2006. It operates a nationwide network of first responders providing initial medical aid in emergencies. United Hatzalah consists of about 5,000 volunteers, most of whom are medical professionals, EMTs, paramedics, and doctors, who are dispatched to emergencies.
Defendant 2, Mr. Eli Beer, is the founder and president of United Hatzalah (“Beer”). Defendant 3, Mr. Moshe Teitelbaum, served as CEO of United Hatzalah during the relevant period (“Teitelbaum”). Defendant 4, Mr. Moti Elmaliach, is the Director of Public Relations and Communications of United Hatzalah (“Elmaliach”).
On January 1, 2014, the Ministry of Health issued Director General’s Circular 2014, entitled “Regulation of the Initial Response for First Aid by Emergency Medical Responders.” It established rules and guidelines for the operation of responders from recognized rescue organizations, including United Hatzalah, and their cooperation with MDA’s dispatcher.
Section 4 of Circular 2014 provided that emergency calls would be received at MDA’s 101 call center. If the dispatcher determined the situation required a rescue vehicle, MDA’s system would automatically locate and dispatch the five closest responders. Section 2.10 required that any call received by another recognized emergency center (not MDA’s 101) must be “immediately transferred without delay to MDA’s dispatcher for activation.”
In 2010, United Hatzalah was officially recognized as a “rescue body” and given a short emergency number, 1221. It established its own emergency dispatch center.
On July 3, 2017, the Ministry of Health issued another circular, “Cooperation Between MDA and United Hatzalah in the Operation of the Responder System” (“Circular 2017”). Its purpose was to regulate procedures between MDA and United Hatzalah and improve responder dispatch. It stipulated that “United Hatzalah shall cease public advertising of its call center so that all calls will reach MDA’s responder center” and that “any emergency call received at United Hatzalah’s center must be immediately transferred to MDA.”
Section 6.3 of Circular 2017 required the development of a special app for UH responders. The app would locate nearby UH responders, send the information to UH’s center, and UH would dispatch them while notifying MDA. MDA would then send full details to those responders via the app. Upon arrival, the responder had to report both to MDA and UH. Sections 7.1–7.2 forbade the transfer of case information outside this mechanism — explicitly prohibiting sharing via groups, broadcasts, or messaging lists.
Section 9.2 of Circular 2017 stated that if the parties could not agree, the matter would be referred to the Ministry of Health for decision. Section 10.4 added that “to prevent harm to human life, until the app is implemented, in cases of resuscitation/unconscious patients, MDA’s dispatcher shall proactively contact UH’s center to locate and dispatch up to two responders.” Section 11 provided that the circular would come into force upon publication and be implemented within six months.
On July 13, 2017, the Ministry of Health ordered MDA to also provide UH with information on severe traffic accidents.
On October 29, 2017, the Ministry’s Director General sent MDA a letter asking for a timetable for the app’s completion. He required that UH’s logo be included alongside MDA’s in the app and that MDA provide a written undertaking not to misuse information about UH volunteers.
On January 28, 2018, a meeting took place between the Ministry’s Director General, MDA, and UH. The summary stated MDA would respond within 24 hours on the logo issue and that “United Hatzalah must not develop or advertise its 1221 call center.” Any calls received there had to be transferred immediately to MDA.
On December 18, 2018, MDA filed the present lawsuit against the defendants for defamation, seeking NIS 2,600,000 in damages. On March 7, 2019, United Hatzalah filed a counterclaim for defamation, seeking NIS 568,080.
B. Summary of MDA’s Claims
Instead of cooperating with MDA and following the Ministry of Health’s directives, the defendants “sought to tarnish MDA’s reputation, maliciously defame it, and cause deliberate harm.”
Following Circular 2017’s order that UH stop advertising its call center and forward all reports to MDA, the defendants launched an attack against MDA, “spreading false and slanderous statements to the public.” United Hatzalah initiated a smear campaign, disseminating false and disgraceful statements about MDA’s responder system, gravely damaging its reputation and causing significant harm, including reputational damage.
First Cause of Action — The Kindergarten Incident (Kiryat Gat, April 30, 2017):
A toddler died after choking on sand. A UH responder arrived first because the kindergarten teacher called the wife of a UH responder. UH’s center transferred the call to MDA regarding an unconscious child receiving CPR. About eight minutes after MDA received the call, its intensive care ambulance arrived; another ambulance came a minute later. Despite treatment, the child died in hospital.
In a separate civil lawsuit, the child’s parents alleged negligence, arguing that calling UH’s 1221 first instead of MDA’s 101 caused a fatal delay.
MDA argues that the defendants cynically exploited this tragedy and falsely presented it as evidence of flaws in MDA’s system.
On June 3, 2018, UH spokesperson Elmaliach posted in a WhatsApp group of health reporters that UH had launched a program with private ambulance companies. He quoted Teitelbaum: “For years we saw cases where MDA had no available ambulances for quick response.” Elmaliach also claimed that in the kindergarten case, “it took MDA’s ambulance half an hour to arrive,” even though a private intensive care ambulance was nearby.
This statement spread widely and was reported in the press.
On June 4, 2018, Teitelbaum repeated these claims in a radio interview, again stating it took MDA “half an hour” to arrive, while a private ambulance with a doctor and paramedic was just minutes away.
MDA asserts these claims were false. Its ambulance arrived eight minutes after the call. UH’s own internal investigation confirmed its responder lacked proper pediatric equipment and delayed alerting MDA.
Teitelbaum repeated such false claims in other interviews, adding accusations that MDA was a profit-driven monopoly criticized by the State Comptroller.
On July 25, 2018, MDA demanded Teitelbaum publish a correction and apology. He never responded.
Second Cause of Action — “MDA’s Monopoly Kills” Campaign:
UH launched a campaign with posters, media statements, and social media, using slogans such as:
“Cause of death: MDA”
“MDA’s monopoly kills”
“Something unhealthy in the relationship between MDA and the Ministry of Health.”
UH announced a protest (December 2018) accusing MDA of blocking volunteers from life-saving information.
Eli Beer himself published videos claiming MDA’s leadership’s “ego games cause deaths” and accusing them of “contempt for human life.”
Elmaliach, in radio interviews, accused MDA of manipulating the Ministry of Health, withholding information, and being driven by profit.
MDA argues these publications constituted serious defamation under the Defamation Prohibition Law, 1965, with the clear intent of delegitimizing MDA and harming its reputation.
C. Summary of the Defendants’ Response to MDA’s Claim
MDA’s goal is to silence and intimidate anyone who dares criticize it. This is a clear case of a “SLAPP suit,” designed to suppress justified and life-saving criticism of MDA. United Hatzalah does not seek to compete with MDA, but to ensure that patients receive immediate first response at the scene until an MDA ambulance arrives. It is absurd, they argue, to claim that the defendants intended to harm MDA. UH’s aim is for information about emergencies to reach the nearest responder, regardless of organizational affiliation.
MDA ignored Circular 2014 and failed to forward emergency reports to UH responders. After repeated complaints, the Ministry of Health issued Circular 2017, requiring development of a dedicated app to dispatch responders based on professional criteria (training, proximity to event).
Until September 2018, MDA made no effort to implement Circular 2017. It delayed app development and did not forward calls from its dispatcher to UH responders. MDA refused to include UH’s logo in the app, contrary to the Ministry’s instructions, causing further delays. Even when the app was launched, UH’s responders were connected only partially, in violation of MDA’s obligations. By December 2018, only about a quarter of UH responders had been connected, and even they experienced malfunctions and were not dispatched to nearby incidents.
In many cases, after MDA’s dispatcher received an emergency call, it was entered only for MDA responders, not for UH volunteers, even when UH responders were nearby. Despite instructions from Ministry official Miri Cohen in November 2016 to share urgent cases with UH via a dedicated “MIRS” line, MDA sometimes disconnected this line, in breach of Circular 2017.
Reports were often delayed, sent only after MDA had already dispatched its ambulances. Sometimes, even when UH volunteers called MDA directly to receive case details, they were refused. Example: on October 4, 2018, UH volunteer Israel Hanuka phoned MDA’s dispatcher to get details of a nearby accident so he could help. He was told that under a “new procedure” MDA could not share details.
“Whoever may be to blame for the delay in app implementation” (Section 52 of UH’s closing arguments), by December 2018 most UH volunteers were not yet connected. Ministry of Health official Miri Cohen wrote on August 1, 2018: “The process is underway, but slower than we would like.” On December 5, 2018, the Ministry confirmed that only about 1,100 UH volunteers had been connected. Therefore, according to Circular 2017, MDA was required to continue transferring urgent cases to UH by phone. Instead, MDA cut the MIRS line, preventing thousands of volunteers from receiving life-saving information.
Thus, United Hatzalah could not stand by when lives were at risk. It saw itself morally obliged to act — including through public pressure and protest — to force MDA and the Ministry to act in the public’s interest. The campaign and planned protest led the Ministry of Health, on December 12, 2018, to order MDA to renew immediate transfer of life-saving information to UH. Six days later, MDA filed this lawsuit to suppress legitimate and justified criticism of its conduct as a public body.
MDA’s statement of claim does not identify 28 publications. Some do not even relate to MDA but to the Ministry of Health. Some were never published, or no publisher is identified.
Regarding the “MDA Monopoly Kills” campaign — UH says it was compelled to act because of MDA’s negligence and refusal to cooperate. Their protest and campaign helped save lives, and they should be praised, not punished. MDA not only cut the MIRS line but also refused to give details to UH responders who called, even when they were near emergencies. UH had a moral duty to publish its campaign, since saving lives is the supreme moral obligation.
The statements made in the campaign were true: MDA exploited its monopoly for profit at the expense of lives. Example: UH responder Ariel Fahima in Be’er Sheva received a report of an incident on his street. He called MDA for the exact location but was refused details because he was not connected to the app — contrary to Ministry directives that information must still be shared by phone. Another UH responder, Daniel Bukovza, was told by MDA that “no such incident existed” — but later discovered there had been an emergency and a woman had died. Other cases were cited (e.g., volunteer Zohar in Kfar Saba, volunteer Avi Tennenbaum in Jerusalem).
These examples show MDA’s delays and refusals. Contrary to MDA’s claims, its ambulances often take far longer than the 8–9 minutes it reports. UH’s campaign sought to shorten response times, expressing a legitimate public opinion. They did not say MDA “kills people” with its own hands, but that its conduct endangered lives.
MDA cannot rely on the Ministry of Health’s report of January 9, 2019 (which found no discrimination in app dispatching), because UH’s claim was about lack of phone information sharing — not addressed by that report. Moreover, the report is not admissible evidence.
MDA never produced authorization from the Ministry of Health allowing it to cut the MIRS line. Therefore, UH argues, MDA acted unlawfully, endangering lives. The campaign “MDA’s Monopoly Kills” was justified.
Personal liability should not automatically attach to UH’s officers. MDA failed to prove grounds for personal liability against defendants 2–4. Most publications were not by them personally. This lawsuit is an illegitimate attempt to intimidate UH’s leadership.
Even if the publications are defamatory, defendants are protected by Section 15(2) of the Defamation Law: they acted in good faith, under a legal, moral, and social duty to publish. Their responsibility to protect public safety left no alternative. Eli Beer’s words were “the true cry of a man who dedicated his life to saving others.”
They are also protected by Section 15(4) of the law: the publications were expressions of opinion on the behavior of a public body. MDA is a statutory monopoly, funded by fees, and must be open to criticism. Any reasonable person would understand that UH meant MDA’s conduct endangered lives — not that MDA itself directly murdered anyone. Punishing such speech would harm free expression.
Regarding the kindergarten incident — they argue the facts show MDA was late, and UH’s statements were “truthful comment.” The tragedy happened because MDA did not dispatch a nearby private ambulance.
UH further points to inconsistencies in MDA’s own reports of arrival times, showing their claims of 8–9 minutes are not credible. The point of their publications was to demonstrate the importance of information sharing with all rescue organizations.
All publications were expressions of good-faith opinion, motivated by the highest moral duty — saving lives. As MDA is a nonprofit monopoly, it is not entitled to statutory damages without proof of harm.
The publications were not intended to harm MDA but to pressure it into cooperation to shorten response times.
The lawsuit was not filed due to real injury to MDA’s reputation, but to block criticism. Any compensation would come at the expense of UH’s life-saving operations.
D. Summary of United Hatzalah’s Counterclaim
MDA itself published defamatory statements against UH, intended to damage its reputation.
First Publication (October 23, 2016):
MDA’s CEO Eli Bin, in an interview with Globes, described UH as a “business” and claimed donations went to another entity (Israelife), paying salaries: “It’s a business rolling millions… instead of focusing on saving lives, they chase prestige to raise donations and slander MDA.”UH claims this was false and degrading, harming its good name and volunteers.
Second Publication (June 16, 2017):
In Ashdod-Net, MDA’s spokesperson said: “Only one obstinate association ignores the Ministry of Health’s directives — purely for financial motives.”Third Publication (July 3, 2018):
In Israel Hayom, reporting on an incident, MDA’s spokesperson stated: “Unfortunately, UH people bluntly ignore Ministry directives… operating independently, without oversight, endangering the public.”Fourth Publication (January 24, 2017):
On Channel 10’s website, MDA’s response to a report read: “UH is fighting for survival for money and donations… that’s why they refuse to follow the Health Ministry’s directives, preferring ‘Wild West’ methods.”UH argues all these publications were false, defamatory, and intended to humiliate and destroy its reputation. It seeks double statutory damages of NIS 142,020 per publication, totaling NIS 568,080, or alternatively half that amount, plus an order for MDA to publish a public apology.
E. Summary of MDA’s Response to United Hatzalah’s Counterclaim
The counterclaim was filed with substantial delay, only as a counterweight to MDA’s lawsuit, to create leverage and threats. At the time of the original publications, UH did not claim they constituted defamation. The counterclaim is part of UH’s broader strategy to damage MDA and deliberately violate Ministry of Health directives. UH even expanded its arguments in closing submissions beyond those in its pleadings.
In the Tadmor Report (2014), which examined first-aid operations in Israel, it was stated:
“The current situation, where multiple organizations each operate their own call centers, not under unified coordination, is inefficient, dangerous, and fundamentally flawed.”
The Deputy Director General of the Ministry of Health, Prof. Grotto, wrote to UH on April 26, 2018:
“Operating another national emergency center beyond MDA’s is unprofessional, confuses the public, lengthens response times, and harms public health.”
In State Comptroller Report 69a it was stated that advertising UH’s 1221 hotline “misleads the public and endangers lives, since the only body that can provide full first aid and evacuation is MDA.”
UH repeatedly violated Ministry directives, tried to cast doubt on MDA, and followed a deliberate strategy to harm it — even creating “prominent events, even if they did not occur.” UH launched the disgraceful campaign “Cause of Death – MDA,” even though the Ministry had formally tasked MDA with running the national responder system. All emergency calls were required to be received at MDA’s 101 and forwarded to it.
Circular 2017 explicitly required UH to stop advertising its hotline so that all public calls would go to MDA. UH’s anger stemmed from the fact that this made its independent call center redundant. The circular required connecting all responders to the joint app. But UH refused to cooperate — its volunteers did not download MDA’s app, continued to advertise 1221, and even renamed itself “United Hatzalah 1221” to circumvent the Health Ministry’s instructions.
UH intercepted calls transmitted by MDA and spread them to its volunteers. It also failed to transfer emergency calls it received to MDA, in violation of Health Ministry policy. The Ministry investigated UH’s complaints of discrimination and, in its January 9, 2019 report, found no discrimination between responders based on organization.
MDA argues its publications were not defamatory, but truthful. UH continues to violate Ministry instructions. All of UH’s claims against MDA have been investigated and rejected by the Ministry of Health.
In its counterclaim, UH did not even argue that calling it a “business” was defamatory. That new claim is an improper expansion of pleadings. In any case, calling an organization a “business” is not inherently defamatory. Bin’s interview comments referred primarily to Israelife, not UH itself. Israelife holds shares in Neophorce Ltd. and receives dividends, so calling it a “business” is accurate. Moreover, UH itself charges fees for services and products, so calling it a business is not defamatory.
MDA has the defense of “truthful publication” — and there was public interest. UH’s violations of Health Ministry directives endangered the public. It sought prestige to raise donations while defaming MDA. UH wanted to continue operating its own call center against Ministry rules. MDA produced evidence of UH’s strategic plan prepared by a consulting firm, recommending tactics against MDA to increase fundraising — including “creating prominent events, even if they did not occur.”
MDA is also protected under Section 15(4) of the Defamation Law, as its statements were expressions of opinion about an important public matter: preventing loss of life. This was legitimate public criticism. UH refused to use MDA’s app because it did not want its volunteers associated with MDA’s logo, and it feared MDA would “steal” its volunteers. Thus, UH ordered its volunteers not to download MDA’s app, deliberately delaying implementation.
The Ministry confirmed UH had not connected all its responders as required. UH’s claims that life-saving information was withheld are “outrageous and false.” The Ministry wrote in December 2018 that UH should have long since connected all its responders to the joint system.
UH endangered lives by not forwarding calls it received to MDA. It even intercepted and redistributed case details in groups, violating privacy of patients and Ministry rules. Some people, aware of this, hesitated to call for help out of fear their details would be spread.
MDA’s statements are further protected under Section 14 of the Defamation Law. They were truthful, of public interest, and made in good faith. They were issued as responses to UH’s defamatory campaign. The wording was polite, with no intent to harm.
Therefore, the counterclaim should be dismissed, and UH should be ordered to pay costs.
F. Discussion and Decision on MDA’s Lawsuit
In Civil Appeal 751/10 Anonymous v. Dr. Ilana Dayan-Orbach, the Supreme Court (Justice Amit) set out the framework for analyzing defamation claims:
Step 1: Does the publication constitute “defamation” under Section 1 of the law, and was it “published” as defined in Section 2?
Step 2: Does it fall under one of the absolute privileges in Section 13?
Step 3: Is it protected by Section 14 (truth + public interest)?
Step 4: If not, is it protected by Section 15 (good faith exceptions)?
Step 5: Remedies and damages.
The process is flexible: the more severe the publication, the stronger the defenses required.
Section 1 of the Defamation Law defines defamation as a publication that may:
(1) Humiliate a person in the eyes of others, or make him an object of hatred, contempt, or ridicule.
(2) Demean a person for actions, conduct, or traits attributed to him.
“Person” includes both individuals and corporations.
The test is objective: not whether the plaintiff feels offended, but how society would reasonably view the publication.
MDA claims defendants published 27 defamatory statements.
Publications relating to the Kindergarten Incident:
Elmaliach admitted he wrote in a WhatsApp group: “It took MDA’s ambulance half an hour to arrive… meanwhile a private intensive care ambulance was standing nearby.” He admitted these were quotes from Teitelbaum at a press event.
The same claim was repeated on UH’s Facebook page, news sites (0404, Kikar HaShabbat, Arutz 7, Walla), and in radio interviews.
Teitelbaum himself admitted he gave multiple interviews repeating that MDA ambulances took “half an hour.”
These publications clearly aimed to humiliate MDA by suggesting it failed to save a child due to negligence. They constitute defamation.
Defense of Truth?
Court examined MDA’s dispatch logs and recordings: The kindergarten teacher called a UH responder at 13:50. UH only transferred the call to MDA at 13:56. By 14:05 — nine minutes later — MDA ambulances arrived.
Therefore, the claim of “half an hour” was false. Even UH’s own investigation showed their responder lacked pediatric equipment and delayed contacting MDA.
Elmaliach admitted his knowledge was based only on “what others told me.” Teitelbaum admitted he relied on volunteers’ reports. Yet those volunteers were not called to testify.
The defendants also omitted the crucial fact that the first call was made to UH, not MDA, causing delay. They never proved that any private ambulance was standing nearby.
The court concluded the defense of truth did not apply. The defendants’ conduct showed lack of good faith: they did not verify with MDA, did not seek its response, and published the “half-hour” claim without evidence.
Responsibility: UH, Teitelbaum, and Elmaliach are liable. Beer was not shown to have taken part in these specific publications.
Damages:
MDA requested double statutory damages under Section 7A(c).
Court noted the defamatory publications were numerous and widely disseminated, but MDA is a strong statutory body, not a private person.
Therefore, the court awarded NIS 50,000 for these kindergarten-incident publications.
Step B – Do the Defendants Have a Defense under Law?
The defendants argued the defense of “truthful publication” under Section 14 of the Defamation Law. Section 14 requires two elements:
The publication must be true.
There must be public interest in its publication.
Both must exist; one alone is insufficient. The burden of proof lies on the defendant.
The defense does not apply to incorrect publications, even if made in good faith. Case law (e.g., Saransky v. Nudelman, 2008; Ilana Dayan rehearing, 2014) emphasizes that the publication must reflect the whole truth and not omit facts that materially change the overall impression.
Examining MDA’s logs, recordings, and UH’s own investigation shows:
The kindergarten teacher called the UH responder at 13:50.
UH only transferred the call to MDA at 13:56.
By 14:05 (nine minutes later), MDA’s ambulances arrived.
Thus, the “half-hour delay” claim was false.
Teitelbaum and Elmaliach admitted UH’s investigation was reliable, and they saw it soon after the incident. The claim that it took 30 minutes contradicts both MDA’s records and UH’s own investigation.
Elmaliach admitted he relied only on hearsay (“what people told me”). Teitelbaum admitted he relied on volunteers’ accounts. Those volunteers were never called as witnesses.
The publications also concealed that the first call was made to UH, not MDA, causing delay. Defendants also failed to prove the presence of a nearby private ambulance. They could have summoned witnesses but did not.
UH’s own investigation showed failures: three minutes passed before UH even informed MDA, and its responder lacked pediatric equipment.
Therefore, defendants do not have the defense of good faith under Section 15. They omitted crucial facts, did not verify the truth with MDA, and published serious accusations (“half-hour delay”) without basis. They also failed to seek MDA’s response before publication.
Responsibility: UH, Teitelbaum, and Elmaliach admitted and even expressed pride in these publications. Beer was not proven involved in the kindergarten-incident statements, so the claim against him on this issue is dismissed.
Step C – Damages
MDA sought double statutory damages for each publication.
Section 7A of the Defamation Law allows compensation up to NIS 50,000 without proof of damage; double if intent to harm is shown.
Case law emphasizes weighing the nature of the harm, the status of the parties, and the scope of dissemination. Even without proof of actual monetary loss, damage to reputation is presumed.
Here, MDA is a public statutory body, not a private person. The campaign involved multiple publications across broad media platforms, aimed deliberately at damaging its reputation.
The court therefore ordered defendants 1, 3, and 4 to compensate MDA in the amount of NIS 50,000 for the defamatory publications relating to the kindergarten incident.
(B) The “Cause of Death – MDA” Campaign
In December 2018, UH published a campaign across various media, stating:
“Cause of death – MDA”
“Cause of death: MDA’s monopoly”
“MDA’s monopoly kills.”
Each of these is defamatory. Publications appeared on WhatsApp, Facebook, and in multiple languages (Hebrew, English, Arabic, Russian, Yiddish). Senior UH officials, including VP Eli Pollack, Chief Paramedic Avi Marcus, and Head of UH’s Resilience Unit Ariel Belmas, published and spread these slogans.
UH also invited the media to cover a planned protest against MDA, explicitly under the slogan “MDA’s monopoly kills.”
Eli Beer published a video:
“In recent weeks I see real harm to human lives, caused by MDA leadership’s desire to keep its monopoly on saving lives in Israel… Our request is one: stop MDA’s ego games, which cause deaths.”
He circulated posters stating “MDA’s monopoly kills.”
On December 10, 2018, Beer also posted this message on his Facebook page, urging volunteers and the public to share. Even if some posts were made by his staff, he is still responsible. He also published another video accusing MDA’s leadership of “malice and wickedness” in withholding addresses from UH volunteers.
Elmaliach admitted that as UH’s spokesperson, he issued press releases announcing the protest under the slogan “MDA’s monopoly kills.” He gave radio interviews accusing MDA of contempt for human life and profit-seeking motives.
Even if the campaign originated with volunteers, UH’s leadership admitted it formally supported and organized it, producing signs, banners, and press releases. Logistics staff prepared and distributed posters with slogans such as “Cause of death – MDA.”
Thus, all defendants are responsible.
Assessment of Defenses
Defendants did not prove truth or good faith. In fact, they admitted they did not claim MDA literally killed people, but only that its conduct endangered lives. The campaign, however, stated as fact: “Cause of death – MDA.”
The Ministry of Health itself had publicly stated, days before the campaign, that UH had not connected all its volunteers as required and that MDA was acting according to directives.
Media reports and the Ministry’s January 9, 2019 investigation confirmed MDA’s compliance and rejected UH’s discrimination claims.
Defendants failed to call any Ministry officials to challenge those findings.
After the lawsuit was filed, UH even published a call for the public to submit examples of MDA delays. Only five cases were produced, out of 4.2 million annual calls — statistically negligible.
Even those few cases were not properly proven. Some witnesses did not testify; others admitted they were not connected to the app and thus could not have expected details.
The court concluded: even if occasional delays occur, there was no basis for the sweeping defamatory campaign.
The campaign was malicious, designed to humiliate and delegitimize MDA. The proper avenue for disputes was to approach the Ministry of Health or courts, not to launch a defamatory media campaign.
Damages – The Campaign
MDA is a statutory monopoly; defamatory campaigns will not destroy it, but they do damage its reputation and affect its employees and volunteers.
Courts must balance between repeated defamatory statements forming one “campaign” versus counting each separately. Here, the court treated the campaign as one defamatory campaign.
Considering scope, severity, intent, and dissemination, the defendants are ordered to pay NIS 200,000 to MDA for the defamatory campaign.
The court rejected MDA’s request to order UH to publish an apology, finding forced apologies meaningless.
Section 7A(b) of the Defamation Law authorizes the court to award damages up to NIS 50,000 without proof of actual damage; Section 7A(c) authorizes double if intent to harm is proven. These amounts are linked to inflation.
Defamation is a civil tort under Section 7 of the Law. Although the Torts Ordinance requires proof of damage for corporations, the Defamation Law (a specific statute) overrides the general law. Case law has confirmed that corporations, including public bodies, may receive statutory damages without proving actual loss.
In this case, both parties are public entities whose mission is saving lives. The defamatory campaign was not a single article but a series of coordinated publications designed to raise UH’s profile while disparaging MDA. This increases the severity of harm.
The defendants issued at least eight broad publications, widely disseminated, deliberately aimed at harming MDA, without giving MDA an opportunity to respond. They ignored MDA’s demand for a correction and apology. They continued their attacks even during trial.
Mitigating factors: MDA is a strong statutory monopoly, supported by the state, so the damage was not catastrophic. Unlike a private person, its survival and operations were never in danger.
Conclusion: For the kindergarten incident, defendants 1, 3, and 4 must pay MDA NIS 50,000. For the “Cause of Death – MDA” campaign, defendants must pay NIS 200,000.
G. Discussion and Decision on United Hatzalah’s Counterclaim
Each of UH’s four cited publications is examined for whether it constitutes defamation.
First Publication – “Business” Remark (Eli Bin interview, Globes, October 2016)
Bin said UH was “a business,” that donations sometimes went to Israelife (another NGO), and that people drew salaries there. “This is a business rolling millions… instead of focusing on saving lives, they chase prestige to raise donations and disparage MDA.”
Some remarks referred to Israelife, but the overall thrust was against UH. Calling a nonprofit rescue organization a “business” implies that saving lives is not its main goal but profit. This could damage UH’s fundraising ability.
Bin did clarify in the same interview that “you can’t say a bad word about UH volunteers; the criticism is directed at the managers.” But this did not remove the defamatory sting directed at UH as a whole.
UH is a nonprofit. The fact that staff receive salaries does not make it a for-profit “business.” MDA itself sells services (first aid courses, event medical cover, blood products) but is not called a “business.” Thus, labeling UH as such was defamatory.
Case law (e.g., Hater-Yishi v. Gilat) confirms that context matters. Here, the context was rivalry between UH and MDA, making the “business” label disparaging.
UH’s managers receive modest, reasonable salaries compared to the organization’s scale. Beer receives $175,000 annually from UH’s U.S. affiliate, reasonable given his fundraising role. The Israeli CEO earned about NIS 37,000 monthly, not excessive. There was no basis for calling UH a profit-driven business.
Therefore, the publication was defamatory. No defense of truth or good faith applies.
Damages: Given the context, UH’s delay in suing, and the fact it never demanded a retraction at the time, compensation should be modest. MDA must pay UH NIS 25,000 for this publication.
Second Publication – “Financial Motives” Remark (Ashdod-Net, June 2017)
MDA’s spokesperson said: “Only one obstinate association continues to ignore the Ministry of Health’s instructions, purely for financial motives.”
UH failed to prove MDA discriminated against it. The Ministry of Health itself investigated and found no basis. Thus, this remark was a legitimate response, not defamatory.
Third Publication – “Survival Battle for Donations” (Israel Hayom, July 2018)
MDA’s spokesperson said UH “is fighting for survival for money and donations, using any means necessary.”
Again, UH depends entirely on donations; that fact is not defamatory. Since the Ministry found MDA complied with rules, this was a legitimate response. Not defamatory.
Fourth Publication – “Wild West” Remark (Channel 10, January 2017)
MDA said UH “ignores Ministry directives and prefers Wild West methods,” fighting for survival on donations.
Given that UH did continue advertising 1221 against directives, this was accurate criticism. Not defamatory.
Conclusion on Counterclaim
UH’s counterclaim is accepted only for the first publication (the “business” remark). MDA must pay UH NIS 25,000 for that.
H. Final Summary
Before closing, the court noted the moral weight of defamation. Quoting Maimonides: “Three sins are punished in this world with no share in the next: idolatry, sexual immorality, and bloodshed — and slander equals them all. Slander kills three: the speaker, the listener, and the subject.”
The judge added citations from Rabbi Jonathan Sacks on the destructive power of words.
United Hatzalah is important and saves lives. But even if it believed MDA harmed its mission, the proper way was not through defamatory campaigns. Both organizations must focus on saving lives, not wasting donated funds on lawsuits.
Court Rulings:
MDA’s lawsuit is accepted in part:
• Defendants 1, 3, 4 must pay MDA NIS 50,000 for the kindergarten incident publications.
• All defendants must pay MDA NIS 200,000 for the defamatory campaign.UH’s counterclaim is accepted in part:
• MDA must pay UH NIS 25,000 for the “business” remark.
• This sum will be offset against the damages UH owes.Because MDA’s original claim was exaggerated (seeking NIS 2.6 million, but awarded only NIS 250,000), UH is awarded partial legal costs: MDA must pay UH NIS 10,000 in legal expenses.
Judgment delivered July 29, 2021, in absence of the parties.
On December 5, 2018, days before the campaign, the Ministry of Health issued a statement: UH had not yet connected all of its responders as required and MDA was operating according to instructions. It emphasized that UH’s claim of “withholding life-saving information” was false and that UH should have long since connected its responders to the joint dispatch system.
This view was repeated in press coverage (e.g., Kol HaIr, December 9, 2018), where the Ministry criticized UH for not linking all its responders, stating that MDA was acting properly.
Defendants did not contradict these statements with any evidence. They called no Ministry officials as witnesses.
After filing suit, UH asked the public to send examples of MDA delays. Only five cases emerged in two years, out of 4.2 million calls. Three of those five individuals were never called as witnesses. Only two testified, and their cases were not convincing.
One witness (Yaakov Agba) alleged MDA delayed 40 minutes when his father collapsed, but admitted he was unaware of MDA’s internal investigation which found no fault.
Even if these rare cases were true, they could not justify a sweeping defamatory campaign accusing MDA of causing deaths.
The “Cause of Death – MDA” campaign was therefore malicious, unreasonable, and defamatory.
Assessment of Good Faith Defense
Section 15(2) of the Defamation Law allows good faith defense if the publication was made under legal, moral, or social duty. Section 15(4) allows defense for opinion on a public body’s conduct. But Section 16 adds that if the publication was false, or the publisher failed to verify, or aimed disproportionately to injure — then good faith does not apply.
Here, defendants did not verify their accusations. They accused MDA of killing, while concealing the Ministry’s repeated statements that MDA acted lawfully. Their campaign exceeded reasonable criticism and aimed to humiliate MDA.
Nor can the campaign be described as “opinion.” It was presented as fact: “Cause of death – MDA.”
MDA is indeed a statutory monopoly, but even monopolies are entitled to protection against baseless defamation. UH could have complained to the Ministry or sued in court; instead, it ran an aggressive smear campaign.
The campaign harmed MDA’s reputation and that of its employees and volunteers. It was widely disseminated.
While damages cannot be calculated precisely, the court assessed a lump sum of NIS 200,000 as appropriate.
The court emphasized that forced apologies are ineffective; therefore, no order for public apology was made.
Discussion – United Hatzalah’s Counterclaim (continued)
Analysis of Each Publication
First publication (Globes interview, October 2016): Defamatory (“business” remark). MDA ordered to pay NIS 25,000.
Second publication (Ashdod-Net, June 2017): Not defamatory; legitimate response.
Third publication (Israel Hayom, July 2018): Not defamatory; accurate criticism.
Fourth publication (Channel 10, January 2017): Not defamatory; UH indeed ignored Ministry instructions.
UH also never demanded retraction at the time, indicating it did not view these as defamatory in real time.
Conclusion: UH’s counterclaim accepted only in part — NIS 25,000 awarded for the “business” remark.
H. Final Summary and Judgment
Before concluding, the judge emphasized the seriousness of defamation, citing Jewish sources. Maimonides wrote that slander is as severe as the three cardinal sins. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks wrote: “Words wound. Words kill. Words destroy communities.”
Both MDA and UH are life-saving organizations. Even if UH believed MDA harmed its mission, it should not have launched defamatory campaigns. The parties must stop wasting donations on lawsuits and focus on saving lives: “Whoever saves one life, it is as if he has saved an entire world.” (Sanhedrin 4:5).
Court’s Orders:
MDA’s claim:
• Defendants 1, 3, and 4 shall pay MDA NIS 50,000 for defamatory publications about the kindergarten incident.
• All defendants shall pay MDA NIS 200,000 for the defamatory campaign.United Hatzalah’s counterclaim:
• MDA shall pay UH NIS 25,000 for the “business” remark.
• This amount is offset against UH’s liability to MDA.Costs: Since MDA sued for NIS 2.6 million but was awarded only NIS 250,000, and UH partially succeeded, MDA must pay UH NIS 10,000 in legal expenses.
Judgment delivered on 20 Av 5781 (July 29, 2021), in absence of the parties.
