Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to testify on Tuesday for the first time since the investigations against him were launched in 2016. What caused these trials, and what effects could they have?
Cause
- Case 1000 - In 2016, investigators began looking into allegations that Prime Minister Netanyahu and his wife Sarah accepted costly gifts from Hollywood producer and former Israeli nuclear weapons agent Arnon Milchan and James Packer, a friend of Milchan's and billionaire investor. The gifts allegedly included expensive cigars, champagne, and jewelry, each valued in the thousands of dollars, which prosecutors tender is beyond the limits on gifts allowed to Israeli political officials by Knesset regulations. Netanyahu is charged with using his political station and influence for various initiatives that would have helped Milchan, including tax exemptions, regulatory issues, and obtaining a US visa. Netanyahu is charged with fraud and breach of trust.
- Case 2000 - In 2017, Netanyahu allegedly discussed with Arnon Mozes, the owner of Yediot Aharonot, the possibility of legislation that would benefit the newspaper and damage rival publication Israel Hayom. In exchange, Yediot Aharanot would push positive publicity for Netanyahu, his family, and allies, and negative publicity for his opponents. Here too, he was charged with fraud and breach of trust.
- Case 4000 - Prosecutors allege that while holding the portfolio of Communications Minister, Netanyahu offered regulatory changes beneficial to Shaul Elovitch, owner of the Bezeq telecommunications conglomerate, in exchange for positive publicity for himself and his family from the Bezeq-owned news site Walla. He was charged with fraud, breach of trust, and receiving bribes.
The charges were filed in the Jerusalem District Court in 2019, on the order of AG Avichai Mandelblit. As a result of the charges and indictment, Netanyahu was required to relinquish his ministerial portfolios save that of the Prime Minister. Following a failed bid for immunity in the Knesset, the trial began in 2020. Netanyahu was present for the initial hearings but has been absent from most subsequent ones, and has repeatedly requested that the trial be delayed or postponed due to various matters he declared of national importance, among them the coronavirus crisis and the Swords of Iron War.
Many parties both in the trial and among Netanyahu's associates have been critical of the investigation behind the charges, claiming it is politically motivated and not actually pursuing justice. The judges presiding over the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have in the past officially published recommendations that the bribery charge be dropped in Case 4000.
"There are difficulties in establishing the crime of bribery in the first charge in the indictment. Given these difficulties, it was suggested that the state consider retracting the bribery offense in this charge," wrote judges Rivka Friedman-Feldman, Moshe Bar-Am, and Oded Shaham.
They also explained that the closed meeting was due to the sensitivity of the matter. "None of those present expressed any reservations about holding the meeting in this way, and no one asked for minutes to be recorded," they wrote.
The judges noted that during the conversation there was a discussion with both sides' attorneys and at the end, the need to end the trial "for the good of the cause and the country" was noted.
According to the judges, this sentiment was expressed without regard to the outcomes of the trial and the verdicts against or in favor of Prime Minister Netanyahu.
The judges have also informed the prosecution that they would have a difficult time proving bribery in Case 4000.
Dr. Yifat Ben Hai-Segev, former chair of the Cable and Satellite Comittee and one of the key witnesses, has also cast doubts on the proceedings. "I committed to telling the truth - the investigation I went through was amateurish, careless and biased, while instilling fear and dread in unacceptable human conditions that should trouble every citizen in the country." The prosecution asked to declare her a hostile witness.
The prosecution witness also said at the trial of prime minister-designate Netanyahu: "I have been waiting for a very long time to tell the truth."
Prosecutor Yehudit Tirosh Gross read statements that Ben Hai had made to the police: "You told police you said that you didn't talk to Avi Berger that much. I don't remember that anything changed in the way Avi Berger functions, and he was very careful about the separation and independence of the Cable and Satellite Council. The wholesale market is not affected by the Cable Committee, that is left to the consideration of the minister and Berger did not talk to me about it. Now I ask you to explain - you say there was an intervention by Avi Berger that made things better, but you never talked to him about it?"
Ben Chai replied: "I said that the answer is complex. Berger was very careful about the separation. I stand by the fact that in the matter of the Bezek-Weiss merger there was definitely interference (on the part of Berger) and I will explain the apparent discrepancy between the two statements. I am very sorry to say that the investigation I went through was a careless and biased amateur investigation, focused on instilling fear, and in unacceptable human conditions that should concern every citizen in Israel. The court will find that my statements at the time were the result of deception and things taken out of context, and when I asked the investigation for the right to look at the documents because I knew that the things I was being told were not true, I was met with a complete refusal. After the investigation I returned to the documents and to my documentation and I found that the gaslighting they tried on me in the investigation was partially successful, but they did not succeed in erasing my memory."
Tirosh asked to declare Ben Chai-Segev a hostile witness. "There is general hostility on her part. She adds things to the story. There are significant changes in parts of her testimony to the police," said Tirosh. "She didn't tell about a meeting that she remembers well. The very fact that she opposed the change is significant."
The judges rejected the request to declare her a hostile witness.
Effect
The trials as a whole, as well as the prosecution's demand that Netanyahu testify, have been the source of significant political protests in Israel, with supporters claiming that he is the victim of unjust prosecution and detractors claiming that he is attempting to place himself above the law.
With Netanyahu's majority of 64 seats in the most recent elections, several members of the coalition have proposed various laws intended to prevent him from being prosecuted until and unless he were to leave office, at the very least. Netanyahu himself has not supported these attempts, and at a press conference last night declared that he is glad to testify as a way of dismissing the allegations against him.
Netanyahu has not yet formally announced where he will be testifying. Although the case is being held in a Jerusalem court, his security detail has recommended that he be allowed to testify from the fortified bunker under the Kiriya base in Tel Aviv.
There is an ongoing discussion as to whether he is to be considered incapacitated at the time of his testimony. Practically speaking, this would leave Justice Minister Yariv Levin to assume his additional title of Deputy Prime Minister, with all attendant responsibilities and authority, until Netanyahu has finished his testimony. Netanyahu has fought against this, declaring that only the people, by election, will decide who is to be the Prime Minister.
Many coalition ministers have declared that they will attend the trial as a show of support for Netanyahu. This has led to significant lobbying to move all votes in the Knesset away from trial dates to prevent the opposition from gaining a temporary majority.
If convicted, Netanyahu could face stiff fines, several years in prison, and possibly be barred from public office.