And then I saw him on the air doing it to my shroom, and I freaked out, and we went and complained and asked not to work with him anymore, not to see him anymore, that we don't want to encounter him in the corridors anymore. Not in his lewd looks and not in his nosy hands.
During the interview, reporter Eli Rachlin asked Dana: "I mean, they didn't protect your honor or your name and just didn't hide you," to which she replied:
They didn't keep our honor when they brought a predator into the station to work with us [...] We still couldn't put a finger on the fact that we were attacked. We were there in a situation that was vulnerable, that we had no protection, that we were exposed, that he could do whatever he wanted.
- At the end of the interview with Dana, the prosecutor's response was presented: "As I have already said, these are baseless lies that have been refuted in real time. I recommend not getting caught up in slander and lies."
- Afterwards, the discussion continued in the studio with the participation of the editor of Politikali about other testimonies that came up in the investigation and how Army Radio handled them, and these are what she said:
There are a variety of types of testimonies, it really ranges from workplace bullying, really classical, to sexual harassment [...]. The testimony about Hofstein, who suddenly took up a very large volume in this thing, is really one of many testimonies that centered on the way Army Radio handled the event. In Hofstein's case, the treatment was the same as Dana Davis, a pseudonym, and in other cases it was the same [...]. This story is really a case study of how things work.
II(4). Social Media Posts "Facebook and"Twitter"
- On the day the article was published on a political website, journalist Haim Levinson posted on his Twitter account the part of the article dealing with the plaintiff under the caption: "Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Bullying at Work Avner Hofstein" (hereinafter: "The First Tweet"). In another tweet, he wrote: "What's going on? Will you quit like Lisa?" (Hereinafter: "The Second Tweet"). The prosecutor tweeted Levinson in response: "Don't worry, you'll sue too"; In response, Levinson responded: "Court transcripts can be sent to the office of Leonid & Co., Yehuda Halevi Street, Discount Building" (hereinafter: "the third tweet"). In another tweet the same day, the plaintiff wrote: "Dear friends, everything is fine. Blood libels and extortion practices are familiar to me from previous rounds. In some ways, I expected it because every Monday and Thursday idiots like Chaim Levinson send a hint. And now I will also take action against anyone who spreads the false and baseless libel, including the pseudonyms in the article, including those who share..." In response, Levinson tweeted: "Avner Hofstein promises to sue the website Politikali Reads, and for some reason, me too, for their investigation with testimonies about his sexual harassment on Army Radio. We will post the thread and monitor every day how the lawsuit is progressing" (hereinafter: "The Fourth Tweet"). The next day, on January 5, 2022, Levinson uploaded a screenshot of a Facebook post published by journalist Birnit Goren, who came out in defense of the plaintiff, and wrote: "There are VIP harassers" (hereinafter: "the fifth tweet"). On January 6, 2022, Levinson shared the article that was broadcast on Channel 13 and tweeted: "Hey Avner Hofstein, when are you suing?" (Hereinafter: "The Sixth Tweet").
- To complete the picture, it should be noted that the conduct described above was preceded by a strained relationship between Levinson and the plaintiff, which was reflected in previous "virtual fights" between them, against the background of an investigative article published by the plaintiff about Lisa Peretz (who served as the editor of the "Gallery" supplement of the Haaretz newspaper) and dealt with allegations of workplace abuse on her part (see Exhibits 1-6 to the affidavit of defendant 6).
- In the statement of claim, the plaintiff also refers to the social media posts of defendant 3, a political manager. In response to a Facebook post published by journalist Birnit Goren, who defended the plaintiff and harshly criticized the article, defendant 3 responded as follows:
Part of what the investigation, which is very comprehensive and very professional, points to is the extent to which the IDF's system for handling complaints is flawed. Are you asking us to ignore the testimonies of various women who came up in an unrelated way because the system, which we reveal consistently ignores and obfuscates complaints, has not found that their complaints are true? It doesn't seem like journalistic ethics to me, it seems to me to be silencing and crowding the ranks. Beyond that, Avner Hofstein is not the heart of the article and I don't care in the slightest. I barely knew his name before the current investigation. If he had not insisted on trying to silence women who wanted to tell about what they had experienced, he would not have become the heart of the story here, which is mainly Galatz and the systematic way in which it ignores complaints. It's very disappointing to see the crowding going on here, especially on the part of those I appreciated. It turns out that the ability to audit the system ends when it comes to close people.