Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said before the start of his testimony in the so-called “cases of the thousands,” “I waited eight years for this moment.” That moment has now stretched for a year and a half, in what may be the longest testimony ever given by a criminal defendant in Israel’s legal history. The piece describes a rare trial in which a sitting Israeli prime minister is the defendant, and says his testimony began and largely continued in the same tone, with Netanyahu delivering a form of “I accuse” speech about injustice, damage to himself and the public, and persecution.
Throughout the hearings in the State of Israel vs. Benjamin Netanyahu, he repeatedly attacked state representatives, often instead of answering the question he had been asked. The remarks, according to the article, often sounded prepared in advance and aimed at producing a headline. Netanyahu raised his voice, sometimes struck the table, and told prosecutors they had framed him, while telling the judges, “There was never anything like this.” The judges, meanwhile, were portrayed as highly restrained and reluctant to intervene or push the proceedings forward. Only near the end of the testimony, for the first time after a year and a half, did the presiding judge respond sharply to one of attorney Amit Hadad’s comments, calling him “chutspah” after an offensive remark.
The article cites the scale of the disruption in the proceedings: nearly 100 testimony sessions, most of them incomplete, instead of the planned three full days a week, six and a half hours each. Roughly two-thirds of the hearings were cancelled, some because of the war, and most of the rest at Netanyahu’s request for medical reasons, diplomatic visits, or what were described as state security and political scheduling issues. Even when the judges rejected his requests, the hearings were still shortened in practice.
The piece also revisits the legal and political backdrop. It says the High Court of Justice ruled that there is no legal barrier to a criminal defendant forming a government as long as he abides by a conflict-of-interest arrangement, and that Netanyahu had said he could both run the country and stand trial. But the article says the reality has shown otherwise. It notes that he agreed not to handle matters involving the justice system and law enforcement, including the attorney general, because a defendant should not be dealing with the chief prosecutor. As for the outcome, the article says it is still too early to know whether he will be convicted or acquitted in the three cases, in which he is charged in all three with fraud and breach of trust, and in one case also with bribery. It concludes that this is neither a “stitched-up case” nor a closed one.
