|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Jerusalem – In an unprecedented moment in Israeli history, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to become the first sitting prime minister to testify in his own public corruption trial.
The high-stakes testimony marks a critical juncture in a legal saga that has spanned seven years, captured the nation’s attention, and become a polarizing force in Israeli society.
Netanyahu’s testimony comes as the defense begins presenting its case in the Jerusalem District Court, over four years after the prosecution launched its proceedings. With Netanyahu’s political and personal future at stake, the trial is expected to dominate national discourse in the weeks to come, sidelining other critical issues.
A Trial Years in the Making
The case against Netanyahu revolves around three major investigations: Case 1000 (Illegal Gifts), Case 2000 (Attempted Media Bribery), and Case 4000 (Media Bribery). Together, these cases paint a complex picture of alleged impropriety involving gifts, favorable media coverage, and policy decisions benefiting business magnates.
Netanyahu’s defense team, led by Amit Hadad, will argue that the charges are politically motivated and that the prime minister’s actions were consistent with standard political practices or sound policy decisions.
After Netanyahu delivers his version of events, he will face cross-examination by prosecution attorneys, likely including Deputy State Attorney Liat Ben-Ari, and case-specific prosecutors Yehudit Tirosh and Alon Gildin.
Case 1000: The Gifts Scandal
Case 1000 focuses on allegations that Netanyahu and his family received luxury gifts from billionaires Arnon Milchan and James Packer between 2011 and 2016. These gifts, including cigars, champagne, and jewelry, were allegedly worth over $190,000.
Prosecutors allege that in return for these lavish gifts, Netanyahu used his influence to assist Milchan with visa and tax-related matters. Hadas Klein, a key witness, has testified about the frequency and nature of the gifts, including instances where the Netanyahu family reportedly demanded more.
Netanyahu’s defense will likely center on his claim of a longstanding friendship with Milchan and Packer, arguing that the gifts were personal in nature and not linked to any official actions. However, Klein’s testimony about direct requests for gifts could undermine this argument.
Case 4000: The Media Bribery Allegations
Considered the most serious of the cases, Case 4000 alleges that Netanyahu provided regulatory benefits to Bezeq, Israel’s largest telecommunications company, in exchange for favorable coverage on Walla, a news website owned by Bezeq’s controlling shareholder, Shaul Elovitch.
The prosecution claims that Netanyahu orchestrated approximately 300 instances of media manipulation to shape public opinion in his favor. Witnesses, including former Walla CEO Ilan Yeshua and former Netanyahu aides Nir Hefetz and Shlomo Filber, have provided detailed accounts of the alleged scheme.
Hefetz testified that Netanyahu was deeply involved in directing coverage on Walla, while Filber’s testimony linked Netanyahu to policy decisions that benefited Bezeq financially. However, Filber later contradicted parts of his earlier statements, casting doubt on the timeline and nature of Netanyahu’s involvement.
The defense is expected to argue that Netanyahu’s interactions with Walla were no different from standard efforts by politicians to influence media coverage. Moreover, they will claim that any regulatory decisions benefitting Bezeq were sound policy rather than corrupt quid pro quo arrangements.
Case 2000: Media Deal Talks
Case 2000 involves allegations that Netanyahu sought a deal with Arnon Mozes, publisher of the Yediot Aharonot newspaper, to weaken a rival publication in exchange for more favorable coverage. Unlike Case 4000, this case lacks evidence of tangible actions resulting from the alleged discussions, making it the weakest of the three cases.
Netanyahu’s defense is expected to downplay the significance of this case, arguing that the conversations were hypothetical and part of standard political discourse.
A Marathon Trial
Presiding over the trial is Judge Rivkah Friedman-Feldman, who previously convicted former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of corruption. Alongside Judges Moshe Baram and Oded Shaham, Friedman-Feldman has faced criticism for the trial’s lengthy timeline, which has spanned over seven years from investigation to defense proceedings.
The trial was delayed multiple times, including a recent postponement due to the war. After granting Netanyahu a one-week reprieve in late November, the court set the stage for today’s testimony. The defense phase is expected to extend well into 2025 or even 2026, with closing arguments and appeals likely to prolong the legal drama.
The Political and Public Impact
Netanyahu’s trial has deeply divided Israeli society, with supporters viewing him as a victim of politically motivated persecution and opponents seeing the charges as evidence of systemic corruption. The trial’s return to the spotlight comes as Netanyahu navigates a fraught political landscape, including security challenges and domestic discontent over judicial reforms.
For Netanyahu, the testimony is a high-risk opportunity to directly address the allegations and sway public opinion. However, the cross-examination by seasoned prosecutors will test his narrative and could potentially expose vulnerabilities in his defense.
Key Witnesses and Evidence
The prosecution’s case has relied on testimony from a wide array of witnesses, including former top aides Nir Hefetz and Shlomo Filber, who turned state witnesses, and former Walla CEO Ilan Yeshua.
Text messages, meeting records, and testimony from other high-profile figures, such as former Prime Minister Yair Lapid and former Mossad chief Tamir Pardo, have also been central to the proceedings.
Notably, former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry avoided testifying due to the U.S. government’s refusal to involve him in the trial.
Netanyahu’s Strategy
Netanyahu is expected to present himself as a leader who acted in the best interests of Israel, emphasizing his long-standing friendships with key figures in Case 1000 and his belief in the policy merits of decisions in Case 4000. However, the prosecution will seek to challenge these claims, pointing to testimony and evidence that suggest a pattern of self-serving behavior.
Looking Ahead
As Netanyahu takes the stand, the courtroom drama promises to captivate the nation and shape its political landscape for years to come. While today’s testimony marks a pivotal moment, the trial’s conclusion remains a distant prospect, ensuring that the prime minister’s legal battles will remain a central narrative in Israeli politics.