Natan Zehavi (Photo by Miriam Elster Flash 90)
Two listeners who aired today (Thursday) on Guy Peleg’s program on 103FM, wanted to talk about his removal from the microphone until a new announcement by the regular presenter on Thursday afternoon, Natan Zehavi, who was suspended from broadcasting due to his serious remarks against Channel 14.
Listener Danny praised Zahavi for his activities for the people and explained: “I will not forget that he did not hesitate to remove from the broadcast people who said incitement,” he told Peleg, “so I personally forgive him and I know many miss him.” On the other hand, my father from Bat Yam claimed that if Zehavi apologized for his remarks and sat down at the presenter’s position, “once again he will start to put all the disgust he has in his mouth on us – and so it will go on.”
Guy Peleg responded to the remarks at length, emphasizing: “To the best of my knowledge, they were willing and interested in returning him immediately to the broadcast, provided he both clarified his words and expressed regret over these things. That’s all. I am not a manager, editor or responsible for others. “And I’m not going to bring him back, I’m just a broadcaster,” he said in his opening remarks.
He added: “It’s hard for me to say that, but I mean what I say – you are allowed to swear, you are allowed to swear and be really rude. It indicates whoever chooses to express themselves in this way.” Peleg added: “I will say it gently, Natan Zehavi is not the first and only broadcaster on the station whose statements are sharp and sometimes very blatant. The show is called ‘Nervous Zehavi’.” However, he said, “I know clearly where the line goes between what is forbidden by law and what is allowed. Where you say something that could be interpreted as incitement, as rebellion, as a call to violence, and where you are just swearing.”
“There is no denying that Zahavi, a broadcaster with a first-rate social sensitivity, is exceptional,” he said. It’s precisely from this place of appreciation and longing and lack that you feel, after all, at the station here you feel exactly the same things. He said, and since there is no denying that a particular public was harmed by these things, is there no place for a person, regardless of the station captains’ demand, to come and say ‘I apologize for the things I said’, and even ensure things do not change? What’s so complicated? .
More in-
The presenter added: “I am not a friend of Natan, but if I had the opportunity, I would say ‘Tell me, are you crazy? What do you want from you? What lie do you want to do in your mind? Do you want to declare allegiance to Netanyahu or the Likud movement? “From you to apologize for things you said, and of course you did not mean, and they deserve an apology and clarification” – and from that moment everything was resolved. ”
In a conversation with the listeners, Peleg added: “It is clear to me, so I do not understand Natan Zehavi’s insistence, that he did not mean that they would set fire to Channel 14 for its occupants. It is clear to me that this was not his intention. “After all, you have some responsibility when you hold a microphone or appear in front of a camera, so sometimes you have to say the obvious as well.”
“Therefore,” he concluded, “I call on Nathan Zahavi, who I appreciate and also like him and his partner in this strip, to say the obvious – that he did not mean to call violence, that it was an unnecessary statement and that he does not intend to burn anyone – neither his love nor “His enemy – and these things were emitted and given meanings that he did not mean. It seems to me that if he says these simple and clear things, they will absorb him here with love.” Listener Danny added: “A lot of your followers ask you to come back. I’m sure his apology, if you come, will come voluntarily and acknowledging that he made a mistake. So our call – please, apologize and get back to your listeners.”
Comments on the article(0):
Your response has been received and will be published subject to system policies.
Thanks.
For a new response
Your response was not sent due to a communication problem, please try again.
Return to comment