Netanyahu’s cross-examination ends with no collapse, but many credibility gaps

After a year and a week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cross-examination in his corruption trial ended on Tuesday. He did not break down under pressure, but the judges were left with a long record of shifting versions, vague answers, and unanswered questions. The prosecution’s task was to present the evidentiary picture in full, face to face, and to show that Netanyahu’s answers do not hold up against the record.

In Case 1000, the dispute is not over whether gifts were given, but why and how much. Prosecutor Yonni Tadmor showed that Arnon Milchan’s cigar purchases jumped sharply after Netanyahu returned to power, from 19,312 shekels over the seven years before that term to 261,155 shekels in 2007 to 2009. The prosecution used testimony from Hadas Klein and Milchan to argue the cigars were for Netanyahu, while the defense stressed that receipts show only purchases, not who received them. The court will have to decide whether Netanyahu’s dealings with Milchan, and with James Packer, created a conflict of interest or were done for the state.

In Case 4000, the most serious charge, the prosecution tried to show that Netanyahu sought and received media benefits from Shaul Elovitch and Walla in exchange for regulatory favors, including the Bezeq-Yes deal. Prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh used testimony from former spokesman Nir Hefetz, Milchan, internal Walla messages, and Netanyahu’s own statements to argue that he closely tracked coverage, asked for specific items, and was far more involved than he claimed. She also sought to revive the alleged “guidance meeting” with former Communications Ministry director general Shlomo Filber by showing it may have happened before Filber’s formal appointment. The defense says there is no clear proof Netanyahu and Elovitch discussed regulation.

In Case 2000, the recorded talks with Yedioth Ahronoth publisher Arnon “Noni” Mozes raised mainly legal questions. The prosecution argued that Netanyahu negotiated in detail over limiting Israel Hayom in exchange for favorable coverage, while the defense called it a legitimate political ploy without intent to carry it out. The hearings are not over, Netanyahu will now face follow-up questioning by Mozes’s lawyer and then by his own defense team, and the judges must decide whether his answers rebut or reinforce the prosecution’s case.