oops “Unfortunate oversight”. This is how they defined the fact that the police investigators, and the other violent forces of the law, infiltrated the lives of a man and his wife, and did so based on a fabricated claim that both were suspected of pedophilia.
No satirist could make up such a story, and if he sent a column in which he wrote that the police would plant a spy on a person based on a lie that that person was suspected of pedophilia, the editor would call him and ask him to reconsider such an ugly accusation against the police and the legal systems, even if it was written as absurd for the purpose comical.
It can happen to you too, dear reader, to you too, a complacent reader who lives peacefully and thinks she is protected from the onslaught of the authorities of the law. The prayer of all of us is: that we may not be in their sights, that we may not fall into their hands, because then there is no justice and no truth, no honesty and no decency. we are lost It hardly interests the media. You hardly see headlines or the opening of editions on this topic.
Maybe it will change a bit if and when Ayla Hasson starts broadcasting on Channel 11, a channel here, starting Sunday. This will happen if the police on behalf of the prosecutor’s office do not break into her house at six in the morning by then, confiscate all her possessions, and she will be brought in for questioning because the police will accuse her of something, perhaps pedophilia or suspicion of forced sadistic relationships with helpless patients, and after six or seven years they will announce that it was just an “accident” throttle”.
anything could happen. You live in such a country right now. After years of investigations and the destruction of your life, you will arrive at the court, where the trial will drag on for many years, the judges will forgive all the injustices that the police investigators and the categories of the prosecutor’s office have done to you, and maybe in the end, if you are lucky, you will hear muttering “regrettable oversight”.
Those who try to describe this situation with appropriate intensity are few people, in almost underground ways. Journalists Eli Tzipori and Avi Weiss in their own web show, as well as attorney Kinneret Barashi and high-tech man Moshik Kobarsky and others as good as them in a separate web show. Yes, the split has reached here as well despite the unity of the goals of exposing the truth and injustice. Maybe it’s good, that way there is double time for their things.
These underground channels only have a few thousand listeners. Ayla Hasson has much more. So far she has been on Channel 13, as you know, and has done a good job in exposing the truth. For some reason I think that on Channel 11 her resonance will be even greater, and it was reported that she will also present a current affairs program on the radio on Channel 2.
It does not go quietly. I heard “time” journalist Anat Kam aggressively accuse Eldad Koblenz, who was the CEO of “Kan”, that “Kan” is trying to please the government when they appoint Ila Hasson. “This is redogization,” she told him in a condemning tone. Indifference, he told her that they would not close the channel and gave two reasons: one, technical and bureaucratic: that it is complicated to close a body in Israel, and the second is interesting: that the channel is very, very loved by the voters of the national camp.
This is not a worthy reason from a journalistic point of view. Koblenz had to answer: “Because the channel is very loved by the Israelis who freely chose the current government, and hope for justice, fairness and discretion.”
Ila Hasson formulates her position towards the opponents of any judicial review in the judicial system like this, in what she said to Sharon Gal in Gali Israel: “The truth is not a tool for them, it is not of interest to them. ‘Who is not ours? We will tear him down’, they should be denounced and not treat them with forgiveness.”
And she said on another occasion, everything is recorded and not overheard: “Certain people who are scattered in many centers of power, don’t really want understanding, that’s not their goal. How can Levin and Rothman’s willingness to come talk be presented in a distorted way? Let’s talk, if it doesn’t work – fine. Those who really care about the country and are really worried will come running to the negotiations. the cat is out of the bag.
As soon as you say that you are ready to talk ‘only if it stops completely’ – you prove that there is the height of cynicism here. When you don’t want something – you find endless excuses. If you want to resolve a dispute, you turn worlds to talk.”
Many times, during the course of the Netanyahu trial and other trials and investigations, and in view of the “unfortunate oversights” that are revealed every moment, I do not understand why the Netanyahu trial is not stopped immediately, where the “oversights” and persecution are the most prominent. Perhaps what Ayla Hasson formulated is the answer: “Whoever is not ours, we will tear him apart.”