Netanyahu Ordered to Submit Updated Medical File in Defamation Case

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must submit his most up-to-date medical file to the court so it can examine when his prostate cancer was discovered, Ramle Magistrate’s Court President Judge Menahem Mizrahi ruled Thursday. The decision was handed down in Netanyahu’s defamation suit against three individuals.

The case has become linked to questions over the prime minister’s medical privacy, public statements about his health, and the limits of discovery in libel proceedings. Mizrahi ordered Netanyahu to provide the updated medical file in a sealed and secured envelope directly to the court, for the judge’s review only, by May 13.

The file must be accompanied by a signed letter from Netanyahu’s personal physician confirming that it is the updated medical file and attaching an original medical document showing when the prostate cancer was discovered. The ruling does not yet order the personal physician or the head of the oncology department at Hadassah-University Medical Center to testify.

The judge said he would issue a supplementary decision on whether to summon the two doctors after Netanyahu testifies in the evidentiary stage of the case.

The defendants have denied that their publications constitute defamation. One defendant wrote on X in May 2024 that he had received information that Netanyahu had been treated for pancreatic cancer following a visit to Hadassah Ein Kerem. Netanyahu said in the lawsuit that he does not have a terminal illness and certainly does not have pancreatic cancer.

According to the decision, another defendant published several posts implying that Netanyahu’s medical condition was not normal and that the public was not being told the truth about it. The third defendant’s publication concerned an alleged incident involving a retired major general and Netanyahu, which Netanyahu said had not occurred.

The defendants argued that their posts followed unanswered requests for information about Netanyahu’s medical condition. They invoked good-faith defenses, noted that the prime minister’s health is a matter of public interest, and said their statements amounted to satirical and legitimate criticism.

Mizrahi wrote that the timing of the discovery of Netanyahu’s prostate cancer was a critical point in the dispute. A public medical report dated April 20, 2026, said that an additional examination had confirmed the cancer was discovered incidentally and at an early stage.

The judge noted, however, that the report did not make clear when that additional examination took place. The court had already rejected previous attempts to summon Netanyahu’s personal doctor, rulings that were upheld by both the district court and the Supreme Court.

Those earlier decisions held that the defendants could not use the case as a fishing expedition into Netanyahu’s medical history where doing so would severely harm his privacy. Mizrahi said the new public medical report created a specific unresolved question about when the prostate cancer was first discovered.

Because that question may be relevant to the dispute, the judge said the court should first review the updated medical file through a less invasive route before deciding whether the doctors should be called to testify.