It is said that whoever puts butter on his head - it is better not to go out into the scorching sun. But, tradition is tradition, and every year on Rosh Hashanah the Prime Minister is asked to appear before the nation for holiday interviews. This time, among other things, Bennett fell into the hands of Yonit Levy in News 12, who said that his biggest enemy was not Netanyahu but the archive. Here is a selection of pearls: "You said in 2018: 'IDF soldiers' hands are tied,' and nothing was done." Recall: About three months after Bennett formed his government, he fell in battle, precisely because of this default, The late Rabbi Bar-El Shmueli; "You said that there would be a million settlers in Judea and Samaria and now you are saying natural growth, Khan al-Ahmar, etc." Corona? "You wrote the book: 'How to defeat an epidemic'!"; ? "Yonit Levy hit him like a Jew beating in the Arava.
Bennett dismissed the criticism with various clichés, but the camera and body language revealed a different truth: the prime minister moved and moved uneasily, stuttering and all his bones saying embarrassment.
Sad, but that's the end of every balloon.
What we will talk about and what we will justify.
The interviewer with the captivating smile demonstrated exemplary journalism and fearless professionalism.
Indeed, a good journalist is the one who stabs a politician with knives and forks, even ostensibly.
But this may not be great wisdom, since the million-dollar question is: Will the journalist be fair in real time?
On the day of an order, will he challenge the person who may serve as the contractor for the execution of his agenda and values?
Will it withstand the social pressure of the professional community that surrounds it?
In other words, we expect a journalist to be rooted in a democratic being, who knows how to set aside his values and respect the rules of democracy, that is, respect the decision of the citizens.
In this respect, there is concern that despite the difficult life she has had for Bennett, Yonit Levy represents a problematic model.
Here is an example.
About three weeks ago, Channel 12 dedicated an article to mark the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, in which Yonit Levy was interviewed as a journalist who in those days was present in post-disaster New York. Levy said, among other things, things that exposed her ideological world: "Nothing can be understood in world politics without the 2001 terrorist attack ... the world has changed. Obama would not have been elected. It is clear that Donald Trump would not have been elected president as someone who could ride this hatred of the other , And specifically the fear of the other Muslim. "
What does it cost?
First, like many of its colleagues, Yonit Levy believes (implicitly) that the choice of ordinary citizens to vote for the right, or for Trump, does not stem from tradition, truth or culture, but mainly from fear or manipulation by those in control.
The opinion of an entire public of citizens is not taken into account anyway, hence the legitimacy of the knowledge mediators, the journalists, to declare the exit of democracy to temporary imprisonment and enter into space.
This is exactly the logic that led Amnon Abramovitch, Yonit's colleague, to challenge Sharon on the eve of Sukkot, before the disengagement plan.
And if you look through the sociological lens, there is also the fear that what Levy said is a cultural code.
When she mentioned Trump she was actually winking at her colleagues, for whom support for Trump is a touchstone for the question: who is stupid and who is smart, who is right and who is not;
When she mentioned "the other Muslim" she actually took a code name that places her in the right camp, the one that fights racism and exclusion of the "weakened" minority.
Want to say, it is possible that Yonit Levy signaled a declaration of allegiance to the liberal-progressive camp - the camp of the beautiful, the brave, the just. Did her words come into the world to please her friends who are connected in various ways to senior civil servants, professors in academia, judges and colleagues in Israel and North America? Did she seek to externalize fairness and professional ethics when she critically interviewed Bennett, while at the same time winking at her friends, as "we are both from the same (global) village"? Was the gifted journalist trapped in the tangle of elite ties? Not only in the interaction in the studio, but also between the lines is hidden a social truth. Yonit Levy as an example.