Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s rebuttal to the prosecution’s notions insinuating otherwise during the cross-examination hearing of his criminal trial testimony on Wednesday was that his friendship with billionaire and Hollywood producer-turned state’s witness Arnon Milchan between 1999 and 2002 was purely personal.
“I was a political carcass” back then, Netanyahu said in answer to the prosecution’s line of questioning to indicate that he and Milchan were not working together in pursuit of ulterior motives.
At the hearing in the Tel Aviv District Court on Wednesday, the prosecution, led by attorney Yehonatan Tadmor, focused on the depth and extent of Netanyahu’s friendship with Milchan.
Its thesis is that Netanyahu’s friendship was tied into political manifestations, laying out the basis for Case 1000 – one of the three cases levied against the prime minister.
He, however, insists that the friendship was deeply personal and that the insinuation that it was political was beneath it.
Unlike on Tuesday, the prosecution on Wednesday moved its questioning further along and elicited more information from them, though the defense objected wherever possible. The judges showed a little less leniency towards the delays on Wednesday, preferring in most cases to move the questioning along.
In Case 1000, or the “Illegal Gifts” affair, Netanyahu is on trial for allegedly advancing legislation favorable to Milchan while receiving gifts from him in the form of cigars and champagne worth thousands of shekels.
Tadmor asked about what has come to be known as the “Bibi Law” – a bill that was passed in 2002 permitting former prime ministers to run for reelection again. At the time, this would only have applied to Netanyahu. However, the coalition back then fell soon after, making the law irrelevant.
Much like the day before, every time the prosecution tried to present new information with which to base questions off to Netanyahu, the defense objected on the same legal grounds as it did on Tuesday: The materials were contradictory and external to those already presented in the case, and so they were deemed “invalid.”
Judge Oded Shaham reminded that the decision issued on the matter on Tuesday – “which we all remember clearly” – specified that submitting evidence during cross-examination is not within the accepted legal framework.
The judges later permitted the presentation of such materials, starting from next week, not to be submitted as evidence but rather to gauge an answer from Netanyahu.
What is valuable to the prosecution in this regard has more to do with the prime minister’s answers and less to do with the materials themselves.
Tadmor argued the 'Bibi Law' was advanced just for Netanyahu
Tadmor argued that the “Bibi Law,” which was proposed as an amendment to the Basic Law: The Government, was advanced with Netanyahu in mind. It passed initial readings in the Knesset on December 18, 2000, in a 63-45 vote. Former prime minister Ariel Sharon won the elections that took place shortly thereafter.
The attorney said that Netanyahu was the only relevant public figure this law would have applied to at the time. The question then, regarding those years, was the relevance of the friendship with Milchan at that time, around 1999, when it would have carried political consequences.
TADMOR ASKED Netanyahu what he knew of the public’s perception of the law itself.
“I understood at the time that some people wanted me back, but I knew that I had no such intention, a sentiment I shared with Milchan,” the prime minister answered. He added, pointedly, “I told you this yesterday: I had no intention of returning to politics.”
“From 1999 until 2002, I was out of the political picture, both because I could not get back in, and because I did not want to,” Netanyahu reiterated.
Tadmor pointed out that Netanyahu calling himself a “political carcass” throughout this series of questions was not aligned with what he told police during his interrogations.
Also, the lawyer continued, one month after Netanyahu lost the Likud primaries in 2002 to Sharon, he was appointed as a foreign minister and a finance minister in his government, so how could he have asserted that his political career was over when he jumped right back into it?
Netanyahu insisted that between 1999 and 2002, he never wanted to return to politics, and that this was clear to his closest circle, to people like Milchan. Tadmor insisted, in turn, that this assertion could not be true, specifically in regard to 2002, around election time.
The prime minister said that he had no political horizon to return to. “Israel was in the worst financial position it had been in in years. I knew that these positions would bury me, and even more so, that I never stood a chance to become the prime minister.”
He continued, “So I asked myself: If I were to become prime minister again, why would that be? The answers for me were the financial mess and Iran, though I knew that the price for it would be massive. But I figured I would fulfill at least one of my goals – to shift Israel financially.”
Netanyahu added that he knew, going into the process, that it was political suicide.
This underscores the prosecution’s position that his political reality changed or was influenced by his friendship with Milchan.
In 2005, Netanyahu was elected leader of the opposition, a position he held until 2009, when he became the prime minister.
In what was presumably an attempt to challenge Netanyahu’s credibility as a witness, Tadmor proposed that being the head of the opposition was a far cry from being a “political carcass,” and that Netanyahu had indeed planned his return to politics.
“My understanding at the time, at least during those first two years [1999-2001], was that my political life span was over. It took time for that to change,” explained Netanyahu.
Tadmor presented a poll from the time showing that Ehud Olmert’s party, Kadima, was sinking. Olmert won the elections in 2006 and served as prime minister until 2009.
One year before the elections, a Smith Institute poll commissioned by Ynet found that Netanyahu was “the most appropriate figure to lead the country,” Tadmor showed.
Netanyahu dismissed this, saying that other polls reflected the exact opposite and that, in fact, Kadima bounced back.
“My friendship with Milchan was completely disconnected from politics and had no effect on my political ups and downs,” the prime minister charged.
He said that politically, he was beaten from 2006 to 2009, and that his friendship with Milchan became even stronger throughout these “intense political losses.”
Netanyahu then lashed out at Tadmor, telling him that he was pushing a specific narrative that had nothing to do with reality.
Netanyahu’s outburst gave Tadmor the opportunity to call the prime minister’s reliability into question.
In response to Netanyahu’s: “This whole narrative is absurd,” Tadmor's answer was: “The way in which you described your closeness and the development of your friendship [with Milchan] is what does not reflect reality.”
“The opposite is true,” Netanyahu said, “we had a true and real friendship right off the bat; a friendship that bled into our family relations as well.”