Zeev Elkin Reveals True Events Behind Political Crisis in Netanyahu's Case 2000 Trial
Minister Zeev Elkin testified in the ongoing trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, providing a detailed counter-narrative to the prosecution's claims in Case 2000. Elkin challenged the prosecution's version of the legislative process surrounding the "Israel Hayom" law, explaining the internal political mechanisms within the coalition leadership and how political pressures led to a deep loss of trust that ultimately reshaped government alliances and caused the coalition's collapse.
During cross-examination, Elkin refuted accusations that he failed to convince MK Eitan Cabel to withdraw a preliminary bill, which allegedly transformed the decision into a government matter. He stated that Cabel agreed to postpone the vote and insisted on a free vote, which the coalition leadership often allowed to navigate political complexities. Elkin criticized the prosecution's legal interpretation of coalition decision-making authority, emphasizing that the coalition leadership is the supreme body and can override government positions, serving as a "pressure valve" in political deadlocks.
Elkin distinguished the "Israel Hayom" law from legislation related to Channel 10, noting that the latter was a consensus-driven law preserving the status quo, while the former represented a dramatic shift in media relations. He highlighted that the "Israel Hayom" bill was a private member's bill, complicating government control compared to regular government legislation. He also explained that the Channel 10 law was a rushed regulatory relief due to election timing constraints.
The testimony aimed to disprove the prosecution's central claim that Netanyahu abused political power to advance personal interests in media relations. Elkin stressed that Netanyahu took the passage of the "Israel Hayom" law very hard, which led to a profound loss of trust among coalition partners. Intelligence reports of a planned political "coup" by coalition partners and Arab parties contributed to Netanyahu's decision to dissolve the coalition and call new elections. This testimony challenges the prosecution's core thesis linking Netanyahu's desire to influence media coverage directly to legislative maneuvers.
