Zadorov May Be Acquitted, But the System Still Refuses to Admit Error | Moshe Cohen-Eliya

An opinion piece by Moshe Cohen-Eliya arguing that Roman Zadorov's acquittal does not lead to institutional recognition of error, but rather exposes an organizational culture of protecting prestige and narratives in the State Attorney's Office and the Supreme Court. The article cites the case of Dr. Maya Furman, the State Attorney's intervention in Dr. Chen Kugel's affidavit, and criticism by Judge Hila Gerstel as examples of institutional conduct that protects itself instead of embracing doubt.

An opinion piece by Moshe Cohen-Eliya, published in Maariv following the acquittal of Roman Zadorov, argues that the Israeli legal system refuses to admit error and protects its prestige. The article points to an organizational culture of a 'deep state' operating in a banal and dangerous manner: powerful institutions close ranks around their decisions, protect the narrative they have already sold to the public, and develop hostility toward those who challenge the consensus. As a central example, the case of Dr. Maya Furman is cited, a forensic medicine expert who gave an opinion that did not fit the prosecution's position in the Zadorov case, and after being selected for a senior position, State Attorney Shai Nitzan sought to reexamine her appointment. It is also noted that the Ombudsman for the Prosecution, retired Judge Hila Gerstel, found a flaw in the demand to change a signed affidavit by Dr. Chen Kugel. The article also refers to a 2015 Supreme Court ruling in which Justices Yitzhak Amit and Zvi Zilbertal rejected Zadorov's appeal, while Yoram Danziger believed he should be acquitted due to reasonable doubt. The treatment of Danziger is presented as another example of suppressing deviation from the consensus. The article concludes that the most important technology missing from the system is humility.