The prosecution on Tuesday tried to draw a tight legal connection between Case 2000 and Case 4000 in Benjamin Netanyahu’s corruption trial, arguing that the same pattern of media coverage in exchange for benefits appears in both cases. Netanyahu forcefully rejected the comparison, called the investigation a political witch hunt, and said the enforcement system against him resembles a “police state.” By the end of the day, his cross-examination was formally over.
The clash centered on Netanyahu’s dealings with media figures, especially Yedioth Ahronoth publisher Noni Mozes. Prosecutor Jonathan Tadmor sought to show that the relationship was not just a political feud, pointing to Netanyahu posts and arguing that the breakdown between them revealed earlier understandings. Netanyahu insisted the fight was purely political: “I wage war against him because he wages war against me,” he said, adding that Mozes was a political rival who sought to influence coalition politics and could even shut down Israel Hayom.
One of the most heated exchanges came when Tadmor pressed Netanyahu on his repeated claim that he did not remember key details. Tadmor said it was impossible that Netanyahu was giving truthful answers while claiming no memory, after recording his rival for the first time. Netanyahu replied that he did not remember at the time, but said his memory had been crowded with many other events over those two years.
Defense attorney Amit Hadad repeatedly objected to what he said was an improper widening of the case, especially efforts to extend the Muzes discussions into January 2015, beyond the December 2014 period in the indictment. Judge Rivka Friedman-Feldman allowed the testimony only as context, not as an expansion of the charges. Later, attorney Yehudit Tirosh argued there was a clear connection between media coverage and governmental actions, while Netanyahu repeated that Shaul Elovitch never asked him for anything and that there was no deal in Case 4000.
Netanyahu ended by attacking the indictment itself and its timing, saying, “It is disgraceful what you did,” and accusing prosecutors of seeking “something on Netanyahu’s head.” The strategic importance is clear, if the prosecution proves a shared method across the two cases, its overall theory strengthens; if Netanyahu preserves the separation, the state’s evidentiary case could be badly damaged.
