Ariel Zilber is one of my favorite singers and songwriters, and not only me. His beautiful songs have accompanied us for decades, and have become part of the soundtrack of the country.
Zilber is currently celebrating his 80th birthday and to that end he has embarked on a special tour in which he hosts artists. But a storm is clouding the festivities.
The famous singer decided to donate to a mass campaign for the release of Amiram Ben Uliel, who was convicted of murdering members of the Dawabsheh family in the terrible attack in the village of Duma. Zilber said he thought Ben Uliel was innocent. This was published in the media, and as a result, artists Shalom Hanoch, Aviv Geffen and Arkady Duchin decided to cancel their performances alongside him. Two of Zilber's regular musicians also announced yesterday that they were quitting his backing band.
For most of the media and artists who canceled their performances, Zilber's contribution to Ben Uliel's release makes him eccentric, extremist and even messianic (there are quite a few who see Zilber as such since he repented).
Now let's make a little game and replace Ben Uliel with Roman Zadorov, for example. After all, if Zilber had said that he thought Zadorov was innocent, no one would have raised an eyebrow, and no artist would have canceled his performance.
Since the murder of Tair Rada, many people have pitched in to help Zadorov prove his innocence. They raised money and cried out on his behalf because both the prosecution and the courts were wrong about him.
First-class lawyers, including Avigdor Feldman and Yarom Halevi, mobilized to bring about his acquittal. Former deputy head of the Shin Bet, Yitzhak Ilan, also mobilized for his release, stating that Zadorov had given police interrogators a false confession. No one thought of those people who were eccentric, delusional, etc. So why is it legitimate to think that the prosecution and the court erred when a man was convicted of murdering a Jewish girl, and it is not legitimate to think so when a person was convicted of nationalist murder? The act carried out in the village of Duma is shocking, as is the act carried out in the bathroom of the Nofey Golan School in Katzrin, but in a democratic state it is permissible to think that an innocent person is behind bars.
There is a common thread between Zadorov and Ben Uliel. In both cases, no forensic evidence was found against the accused. In both cases, they were convicted after giving a confession and repeating the act. Both later retracted the confession. Ben-Uliel, unlike Zadorov, was interrogated by the Shin Bet. The so-called "special measures" were used against him during the interrogation, and according to him, he confessed after being tortured.
In the past, when there was no DNA, confession was the queen of evidence. Today, in times of advanced technology and, of course, DNA, a conviction based on a confession alone can create doubt. In this regard, I strongly recommend that you watch the documentary series "The Innocence Project" on Netflix. You will see there how people confessed to the murder, knew how to provide verified information (information that only the perpetrator and the investigators know) and even knew how to reconstruct the act. For years they cried out for their innocence, but no one listened to them. When the DNA tests came into use, they were tested, and then it turned out that they were indeed innocent. Not only did it turn out that they did not commit the terrible deeds, but the real perpetrators were caught thanks to DNA.
Now let's make a little game and replace Ben Uliel with Roman Zadorov, for example. After all, if Zilber had said that he thought Zadorov was innocent, no one would have raised an eyebrow, and no artist would have canceled his performance
Today, after Zadorov's resounding acquittal, we know that he made a false confession and that the "prepared details" he knew were planted in his head by police investigators. I am not here to claim that Ben-Uliel did not carry out the attack, but that it is legitimate to think that a mistake was made in his case, just as it was legitimate to think so about Zadorov.
And another word for Shalom Hanoch, Aviv Geffen and Arkady Duchin: Why mix personal opinions and politics with music? Zilber did not justify the terrible act in Duma, he only expressed his opinion that Ben Uliel did not commit the deed.
It's legitimate and it's his right. Apparently, the media pressure did its job. Too bad.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us