After a year and one week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has finished the cross-examination phase of his trial in the Jerusalem District Court. He did not break under pressure, but prosecutors left the judges with a long record of evasive answers, shifting versions and unresolved questions. The hearing now moves to the re-examination stage, first by Noni Mozes’s lawyer and then by Netanyahu’s defense team.
In Case 1000, the dispute centers not on whether gifts were received, but why they were given and in what amounts. Prosecutors said they showed a sharp rise in Arnon Milchan’s cigar purchases after Netanyahu returned to power, from 19,312 shekels in the seven years before that term to 261,155 shekels in 2007 to 2009. Prosecutor Yoni Tadmor argued the increase was tied to Netanyahu’s election, citing testimony from Hadas Klein and Milchan that the cigars were for Netanyahu. The defense countered that receipts and invoices show only the volume of purchases, not who received them or when.
In Case 4000, the central bribery allegation involves regulatory benefits for Shaul Elovitch in exchange for favorable coverage on Walla. Prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh sought to rebuild the bribery theory after judges had earlier suggested the charge was weakening. She pressed Netanyahu on his claim that he had little interest in the media, using testimony from former spokesman Nir Hefetz and Milchan, plus internal Walla correspondence and Netanyahu’s own statements, to argue that he cared deeply about coverage and even sought to use Walla against political rivals. She also tried to counter his “rubber stamp” claim by citing testimony from former chief of staff Eyal Haimovsky that Netanyahu reads what he signs.
The prosecution also tried to revive the allegation that Netanyahu instructed then communications ministry director-general Shlomo Filber, by arguing the meeting may have happened before Filber’s formal appointment. Netanyahu denied the meetings were in that role and did not give a convincing alternative explanation. On the core issue, the defense says there is no decisive proof Netanyahu and Elovitch discussed regulatory matters or that Netanyahu understood any link between coverage and regulation.
In Case 2000, the taped conversations with Yedioth Ahronoth publisher Arnon “Noni” Mozes concern a proposed deal to limit Israel Hayom in return for favorable coverage. The prosecution says Netanyahu negotiated the proposal in detail and kept meeting Mozes to gain positive coverage, while the defense calls it a legitimate political maneuver with no intent to carry it out. Prosecutors also argued that Case 2000 helps prove Case 4000 by showing Netanyahu’s sensitivity to media coverage and willingness to bargain over it.
