Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cross-examination in the corruption trial tied to Cases 1000, 2000 and 4000 has ended, after starting in June last year and stretching for about a year and a half. The prosecution spent the year confronting him with charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust, and with contradictions between his testimony and his police statements. The current stage is now over, and the next steps are defense witnesses, closing arguments, a verdict and sentencing, unless the case is interrupted by a plea deal or pardon under discussion at the President’s Residence.
In Case 1000, the “gift case,” Netanyahu is accused of fraud and breach of trust over gifts from businessmen Arnon Milchan and James Packer, including cigars and champagne. Prosecutors say those gifts became a steady “supply line,” while Netanyahu insisted the relationship was personal and that the presents were occasional friendly gestures. He also denied knowing about Milchan’s involvement in projects he later helped with, and said his intervention on Milchan’s U.S. visa, tax matters and the Keshet-Reshet merger had legitimate or outside-his-authority explanations.
In Case 2000, based on recorded conversations with Yedioth Ahronoth and Ynet owner Noni Mozes, Netanyahu argued he never intended to advance the Israel Hayom bill and only misled Mozes. Prosecutors countered with the recordings and with Netanyahu’s own statements, including language suggesting a legislative path. In Case 4000, the most serious file because it includes a bribery charge, prosecutors said Bezeq-Walla owners Shaul and Iris Elovich provided favorable coverage in exchange for regulatory benefits, citing hundreds of requests to alter coverage and alleged interventions on their behalf, including the Bezeq-Yes deal, Yad2, the wholesale market reform and structural separation.
The prosecution highlighted repeated memory lapses, sudden recollections when shown transcripts, and personal attacks on investigators, whom Netanyahu compared to the Stasi, mafia and criminals. It also tried to show that his claim of merely wanting to diversify the media was false, citing his late-night requests to Walla and his categorization of stories as friendly or hostile. Netanyahu portrayed the cases as “tailor-made” prosecutions, used slogans such as “no unusual response, unusual hostility,” and repeatedly dismissed the charges as absurd. A key unresolved issue remains whether the bribery count can be proven, especially because the alleged “instruction meeting” in Case 4000 rests largely on the testimony of state witness Nir Hefetz and on disputed timing.
