Who does not know the perennial riddle that appears every week - "the weekly drawing for a child" - in which a ball, a flower, a dog or the Danish child is hidden in an illustration among many other objects?
Now, in the spirit of these days, a similar riddle remains in its form, even if not in the software.
Readers are asked to locate in our cartoon tangle where MK Netanyahu's trial has gone. Could it be? For his conviction and lowering of the prime minister's post, they were shrouded in silence, or rather, in concealing the trial from the eyes and ears of the public (although reports are currently being published about the circumstances of the dismissal of Avi Berger, who was director of the Ministry of Communications).
The Netanyahu trial was at the heart of election campaign propaganda. But if the role of the media is to serve the public, because then there is no choice but to determine, and sadly: the media is elevated in its role. The media is supposed to expose, to penetrate hidden, unknown corners, in everyday life. But this is exactly not how the media in Israel behaves at a time when a trial is being conducted against a former prime minister. Contrary to hollow statements that the media is obedient and reconciles with a threatening atmosphere created by the government, the truth is that there is no governmental factor that causes the trial to be conducted, as it were, behind closed doors. It is worth mentioning that in the past, even before the trial began, there was information that Netanyahu had already been convicted of a field court, the media court. A statement in this spirit was made by the late lawyer Prof. Ruth Gavison, bride of the Israel Prize. At this stage of the legal hearing, the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses is still being conducted. The meaning of silence,Or the silence of the media reports on the trial, is that the bribery clause in the indictment is about to collapse, to be repealed.
Some commentators have indeed emphasized the severity of the evidence against the accused, which is available to the prosecution.
Welfare echoed in the words of some commentators that there is no doubt that Netanyahu will be convicted.
Are the commentators afraid that the predictions are about to be false?
Occasionally it was possible to perceive that the sitting judges were making remarks to the prosecution, from which it might have been implied that the case had not been properly prepared.
These remarks created the impression that the bribe clause was about to collapse, be erased, resting on loose foundations.
We are not able, without education in the field, to express an informed position that this is indeed the case.
We have learned that the comments or reprimands of judges do not imply the expected content of a judgment.
One has to wait patiently, but until the verdict is read, the media must fill the void created due to the absence of reports from the agenda.