After a prolonged recess due to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s illness, his corruption trial testimony began anew at the Tel Aviv District Court on Monday, with the prime minister dismissing testimonies of former aides about an alleged media bribery scheme as being fabricated through coercion.
A doctor accompanied Netanyahu to the hearing, and the prime minister had to sit for much of his testimony. While he has appeared in good spirits during his previous testimonies, on Monday he seemed fatigued, terse, and of short temper.
The prime minister’s testimony had been delayed for almost a month. Netanyahu, who had suffered from an infection after a December 29 prostate operation to remove a non-malignant growth, urged the court on Monday to take greater consideration of both his health situation and the demands of his position as the country’s leader.
The premier said he had not fully recovered from his illness because of intensive work during the war, which included addressing the faltering ceasefire in Lebanon and negotiating and overseeing the hostage release deal with Hamas.
“It’s not a delay, and it’s not spin,” said Netanyahu.
Defense Attorney Amit Haddad had made requests to limit the testimonies to once a week due to his client’s health, but on Saturday the court had decided to proceed with truncated testimonies three times a week, from 9:00 until 14:00.
In addition to shortened hearings, the court ruled that he would be accommodated with as many breaks as needed.
Process of the hearings
Monday’s hearing began with the judges wishing the prime minister good health, reiterating that they would recess if he was feeling unwell at any point.
Netanyahu took two breaks during the hearing, one that he said was due to both his poor health and so that he could address government matters conveyed to him in an envelope while he was on the stand.
The testimony covered some new subject matter on Monday when Haddad turned to discuss the testimony of former communications aide Nir Hefetz, who served as a state witness. The prime minister said that Hefetz, like his former adviser and chief of staff Ari Harow, was pressured by trumped-up crimes so he would give false testimony.
“I was angered by him,” said Netanyahu, but later he “understood that he [Harow] had to lie.”
He clarified, when encouraged by Haddad, that “at first I was very angry with him, but after seeing the torture he went through, I understood the circumstances in which he was forced to satisfy his investigators.”
The prime minister said Hefetz’s testimony had sought to please investigators with claims that 2014-era regulatory policy was adjusted to benefit then-Bezeq and Walla owner Shaul Elovitch.
Hefetz had also testified that he spoke to Netanyahu and his wife, Sara, about how to please Bezeq before contacting former director-general of the Communications Ministry Shlomo Filber.
The prime minister said that the supposed chain of communications was ridiculous. Hefetz was not a confidant, he said, as he was always wary of his aide’s connections to Yediot Aharonot owner Arnon Mozes. Accordingly, he didn’t discuss personal matters or sensitive security issues with the state witness.
The aide’s connections with Mozes were both a disadvantage and an advantage, said Netanyahu. Hefetz was brought onto his team because of his connection to Mozes, keeping in mind that Yediot Aharonot was one of the most influential news outlets in the country.
Netanyahu allegedly fired Hefetz because there were significant leaks from the office, and the prime minister suspected him. A contributing factor was that his aide had personal issues with other office staff.
The prime minister said that investigations into his regulatory policies impeded the progress of contracts for Israel’s internet infrastructure.
The rest of the day’s hearing retread ground, with Haddad highlighting individual articles to demonstrate the flaw in the prosecution’s theory that Netanyahu had made a deal with Elovitch to provide the politician with positive news coverage in exchange for policy that benefited the mogul’s telecommunication companies.
As Haddad asked the prime minister for his comments about individual articles, the attorney clashed with the judges about the extent of in-depth detail explored with the defendant. Judge Moshe Baram urged Haddad to ask more general questions as he reviewed items from the indictment, but Haddad argued that the “macro” in the allegations was informed by the “micro.”
The lengthy process of reviewing each item with Netanyahu, only for the same comments and remarks to emerge, had repeatedly arisen as an issue in the court.
The defense attorney noted that some alleged coverage requests included in the indictment did not actually result in a published article despite the filing detailing that one existed. The attorney challenged the indictment’s description of supposed communications between the Netanyahu and Elovitch camps as “demands” when there was no corresponding article on Walla.
Judge Baram asked the prosecution to clarify on what basis claims of a demand were being made in such a case, with the prosecution assuring that it would be explained during the cross-examination. The answer was not well received by Baram, who alluded to the need for individual items to be proven in the indictment at this stage of prosecution.
Haddad decried the investigation into the prime minister as not cohesive and having produced an indictment “puzzle” that had to be assembled on the table. Judge Rivka Friedman-Feldman chastised the attorney for making comments more suitable for a closing statement than part of an examination of a defendant.
“I appreciate that you all agreed to go one by one on each item,” Netanyahu said to his defense team, asserting that the indictment was cobbled together from ridiculous and exaggerated accusations that shouldn’t have amounted to corruption charges. He repeatedly fell into rants about the “absurdity” of the allegations against him.
Haddad continued to present ostensibly negative news coverage of Netanyahu to demonstrate there was no media bribery scheme between the prime minister and ex-Walla owner Elovitch.
The prime minister attacked Walla over one article that he accused of serving a Hamas narrative, using his oft-repeated refrains “Walla Hamas” and “Walla akbar.”
“Based on what am I guilty?” he asked about one negative article.
Another article, which Netanyahu decried as a lie, asserted that he incited violence against assassinated former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin.
He also denied having been in contact with alleged middleman Ze’ev Rubinstein about taking down a “fake news” article on Walla. In one message from Rubinstein, regarding a late-night article about Sara Netanyahu, the prime minister noted that based on the female tenses used and the tone taken by Rubinstein, his friend was clearly speaking to Mrs. Netanyahu about the report, and not the prime minister.
Netanyahu argued that even if his office had been in contact with Walla, all the previous prime ministers had relationships with newspaper owners and editors-in-chief. The prime minister said he had discussions on the matter with Israeli and foreign leaders, and providing information to the media was the norm.
“Give me a break,” he said. “It’s the norm in our democracy and in the democracy of the Americans.”
Netanyahu routinely contacted leadership of news outlets other than that of Walla, which he noted were more routine than his communications with co-defendant and former Walla owner Shaul Elovitch.
The prime minister complained that there was a great deal of information that he had attempted to convey to the media, but they ignored his positions and narrative, describing them as an impenetrable wall.
He said that this media landscape was antithetical to democracy and that he sought to diversify, not control, the media.
Netanyahu is set to return to the bunker courtroom of the Tel Aviv District Court on Tuesday morning.
Yonah Jeremy Bob contributed to this report.