After repeated attempts to postpone Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's testimony, the defense phase of Cases 1000, 2000, and 4000 trial began Tuesday at the Tel Aviv District Court.
Video: Nentayahu arrives at the Tel Aviv District Court / Credit: Elinor Shirkani Kofman
Some five years passed since the unprecedented indictment of a sitting prime minister, and now Netanyahu will present his version of events in these cases over the course of weeks, possibly months.
Netanyahu is facing corruption charges in three cases: Case 1,000, which centers on gifts Netanyahu allegedly received from Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan and Australian billionaire James Packer; Case 2,000, which focuses on an illicit deal Netanyahu allegedly tried to strike with Yedioth Ahronoth publisher Arnon Mozes so as to ensure positive coverage; and Case 4,000, which centers on an alleged deal by which Shaul Elovitch, then the controlling shareholder of Israeli telecom corporation Bezeq, ensured positive coverage of the Netanyahu family by the Walla! news website, which Bezeq owns, in exchange for the prime minister promoting government regulations worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the company.
Video: Protests against Netanyahu outside the courtroom / Credit: Yehuda Shlezinger
Netanyahu began his testimony by expressing his long-awaited opportunity to speak, stating "I waited 8 years for this moment. To tell the truth. The truth as I remember it, which is important for the sake of justice. There is no justice without truth." He emphasized his astonishment at reviewing the case materials, describing them as absurd allegations.
When addressing the prosecution's claims about the significance of media coverage to the Netanyahu family, he strongly rejected this characterization. "The reality is exactly the opposite," Netanyahu declared. He elaborated on his motivations, saying, "I'm not concerned with my future but with the future of the State of Israel. The mission I inherited from my grandfather, father, and brother – these are the things that have guided me." He emphasized his dedication to public service, noting that he had "almost sacrificed my life several times" for the state. Netanyahu stressed his vision of Israel's survival: "I'm talking about the existence of the Jewish people – there is no existence for the Jewish people without the State of Israel. And there is no existence for the State of Israel without it being very strong – militarily strong, economically strong, and both cannot exist without diplomatic action."
Regarding the timing of his testimony, Netanyahu acknowledged the unprecedented circumstances, noting that he was managing the country and leading Israel and its army during wartime. "A few days ago, something cataclysmic happened here. It's an earthquake that hasn't occurred in a hundred years – we've already changed the face of the Middle East," he stated, referring to the toppling of the Syrian regime. He expressed his belief that he could balance both his legal obligations and state responsibilities, stressing, "I thought and still think that both things can be done in parallel... I thought that in the overall scheme of things, a balance could be found between the needs of the trial, which I recognize, and the needs of the state."
Netanyahu's testimony continued as he addressed the indictment's second allegation, which claimed that he and his wife acted hedonistically, demanding supplies of cigars and champagne and that he exploited his position to receive benefits worth hundreds of thousands of shekels. His response was unequivocal, saying "Absolute lie. Double absurdity."
Netanyahu then provided a detailed glimpse into his daily routine to counter these claims, saying, "I work 17-18 hours a day. My staff knows this well. It's around-the-clock work into the early hours of the night. There's almost no time to see family. I didn't see the children, and that's a very heavy price to pay." He described his limited leisure time, noting that his main escape was reading history books and occasionally economics books. Regarding the specific allegations about cigars and champagne, he added a personal detail. "From time to time I also indulge in a cigar, which I can't smoke continuously because I'm constantly in back-to-back meetings. And by the way, I hate champagne, I can't drink it."
According to the prosecution, the gifts were not casual friendly gestures but part of an ongoing system where the Netanyahu couple made direct requests, even using code names like "leaves" for cigars and "pinks" for champagne. Hadas Klein, Milchan's personal assistant, described during her testimony how she was required to arrange regular champagne deliveries for Sara Netanyahu and ensure premium cigars for the prime minister. She claimed the gifts began at Milchan's initiative but later became actual demands from the Netanyahu family.
In a statement to the press, Netanyahu addressed his trial on Monday, Netanyahu blasted the press. "I heard in the media that they're saying I want to evade the trial. I want to evade? What nonsense. I've been waiting eight years for this day, eight years to present the truth, eight years to finally explode these delusional accusations against me. I've been waiting to expose the method of this cruel witch hunt. It's my turn to speak."
Now, Netanyahu must explain this in light of the evidence and testimonies accumulated during five years of trial.
What is Netanyahu charged with?
Case 1000: Illicit gifts?
Case 1000, also known as the "Gifts Affair," is considered the most evidentially established among the cases. According to the indictment, the prime minister and his family systematically received cigars and champagne worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Most gifts were supposedly provided by Arnon Milchan, a Hollywood producer and businessman, and later reportedly by Australian billionaire James Packer, who also allegedly covered part of the expenses.
According to the prosecution, the gifts were not casual, friendly gestures but part of an ongoing system where the Netanyahu couple made direct requests, even using code names like "leaves" for cigars and "pinks" for champagne. Hadas Klein, Milchan's personal assistant, described during her testimony how she was required to arrange regular champagne deliveries for Sara Netanyahu and ensure premium cigars for the prime minister. She claimed the gifts began at Milchan's initiative but later became actual demands from the Netanyahu family.
The defense argues these were legitimate friendship relations, and the gifts were given within the context of close personal relationships unrelated to Netanyahu's public position. The prime minister's defense team, led by Attorney Amit Hadad, attempted to present Klein as a hostile witness and refute her description of a continuous "supply line." Hadad argued the gifts were mainly given during special occasions, such as holidays and family gatherings, and many weren't even intended for the Netanyahu family.
The key question in this case concerns the nature of the gifts: Was this a friendly relationship or an improper connection exploited for receiving benefits based on Netanyahu's public position?
Case 2000: Conversations with Yedioth Ahronoth Publisher
Case 2000 centers on conversations between Prime Minister Netanyahu and Yedioth Ahronoth publisher Arnon Mozes. According to the indictment, Mozes offered Netanyahu significantly improved coverage in exchange for advancing legislation that would harm the circulation of Israel Hayom, Yedioth Ahronoth's competitor.
The prosecution is expected to confront Netanyahu with recordings of conversations submitted to court, which allegedly reflect the dynamics between the parties. Additionally, the prosecution will try to prove through his answers his intentions at the time and whether he tried to signal to Mozes that the deal was possible to gain favorable coverage.
According to the indictment, Netanyahu didn't agree to the deal but also didn't refuse the bribe offer, instead conducting a long and detailed discussion about the proposal's components, leaving Mozes with the impression the deal was still being considered. The prosecution argues that Netanyahu thus used his power to cause Mozes to provide favorable coverage, constituting a breach of trust. One of the central moments, according to the prosecution, is Netanyahu's 2014 decision to allow coalition members free vote regarding the anti-Israel Hayom legislation, which ultimately got shelved.
The prosecution is expected to confront Netanyahu with recordings of conversations submitted to the court, which allegedly reflect the dynamics between the parties. Additionally, the prosecution will try to prove through his answers his intentions at the time and whether he tried to signal to Mozes that the deal was possible to gain favorable coverage.
Cast 4,000: Positive press in exchange for regulatory favors?
The most complex questions are expected in Case 4000, the "Bezeq-Walla Affair." Netanyahu will have to address revealing correspondences between then-Bezeq chief Shaul Elovitch and then-Netanyahu chief of staff Nir Hefetz.
One of the central aspects of the case is the extent of phone calls between Netanyahu and Elovitch during the relevant period. According to the prosecution, about 230 phone calls occurred between them, allegedly discussing matters related to journalistic content and regulatory moves benefiting Bezeq.
One of the central aspects of the case is the extent of phone calls between Netanyahu and Elovitch during the relevant period. According to the prosecution, about 230 phone calls occurred between them, allegedly discussing matters related to journalistic content and regulatory moves benefiting Bezeq.
The key point in the case is the approval of the Bezeq-Yes deal, which granted Elovitch significant financial benefits. The prosecution argues that Netanyahu, who served as communications minister at the time, acted improperly to facilitate the approval. Conversely, the defense will argue that Netanyahu had no direct discretion in the process, and decisions were made by professional staff at the Communications Ministry.
The questions Netanyahu will be asked will focus partly on the extent of his personal involvement in the site's content, personal connections with Shaul Elovitch, and the relationship between regulatory decisions made and the benefits he allegedly received from positive coverage.
