Monday’s furor at the Jerusalem District Court denoted the high political drama of having opposition leader Yair Lapid testify against the sitting prime minister. But the importance of Lapid’s testimony was challenged by its briefness; the prosecution questioned Lapid for only around 40 minutes.
Lapid entered the courtroom with fanfare from photographers and the clacking of their cameras. The photographers uncharacteristically swarmed into the courtroom after Lapid, momentarily allowed to film and photograph the witness before the bench. The courthouse saw heavy security and increased checks ahead of the testimony.
The Yesh Atid head is taking the stand for Case 1000, in which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is alleged to have received expensive gifts from Israeli businessman Arnon Milchan in exchange for aid in his business affairs.
Lapid’s testimony discussed a tax law that Milchan allegedly lobbied for, as well as their personal relationship.
Humor and details
Lapid took the stand, presenting an image of good humor, and recalled the start of his political career as finance minister for Netanyahu from 2013 to 2014. He also detailed his relationship history with Milchan, whom he has known since he was a journalist, having written an article about him in the 1990s. They were in sporadic connection, and for a few months Lapid worked for Milchan, establishing a television company for the businessman in the United States, but “realized it wasn’t for me.” Lapid said he was aware that Netanyahu also had a relationship with Milchan.
Lapid and Milchan would try to meet whenever the businessman would visit Israel, including once meeting for dinner, during which Milchan lobbied that a 2009 law providing tax exemptions for immigrants for 10 years should be extended by another 10 years. According to the indictment, Milchan registered as a returning resident that year.
The two held another meeting on the subject later with Milchan’s lawyer at Lapid’s home office. Lapid conferred with his ministry’s legal adviser, who recommended against the change, saying that he didn’t go into details with her about it.
The defense noted that Lapid had told police, during the investigation, that it was part of the experience as a minister to constantly have people lobby about what policies they think are best. “You get a lot of people telling you what’s best for Israel,” he said.
Milchan said that the tax law change would be good for Israel, and would bring good people and improve the economy, according to the testimony.
Milchan had also wanted Lapid to meet Australian businessman James Packer, who wanted to move to Israel at the time. Packer was presented as a case study for how the current tax and legal situation made it difficult for people who wanted to make aliyah to transfer their businesses and assets. In Case 1000, Packer is another figure alleged to have provided gifts to Netanyahu.
Netanyahu briefly mentioned the law twice to Lapid after the meetings with Milchan, according to the testimony.
The prime minister thought the extension was a good idea, but Lapid said that he didn’t. Under questioning from the judges, Lapid said that he felt that Netanyahu was “checking off a box” by asking about it on behalf of Milchan.
The defense questioned Lapid’s recounting of the stories of his meeting with Netanyahu and different versions of what the prime minister said. Attorney Amit Haddad challenged where the meetings would have happened by cross referencing Lapid and Netanyahu’s schedules. Lapid’s good cheer turned to annoyance in the cross examination, as Haddad sought to demonstrate that Lapid has a tendency to exaggerate stories by using an example of different recountings about events in his military service.
The whole episode lasted six weeks
Lapid said that the whole episode only lasted one and a half months, and the defense noted that he didn’t think it was problematic at the time – and that when he was called for interviews with the police, he didn’t see an issue.The defense also highlighted the fact that Lapid did not meet with Milchan at the request of Netanyahu, and that Netanyahu didn’t pressure Lapid to adopt the policy recommendations after the meetings. The defense said that this trend continued with a lack of pressure on the finance ministers after him.
Lapid had trouble recalling the exact timeline of events, saying that many of them happened years ago. It was argued that any discrepancies were due to the passing of time, rather than an intent to mislead.
After Lapid’s testimony, which at the request of the prosecution may last three days, the next known major witness to testify is Milchan himself on June 25. As the businessman is ostensibly too ill to travel to Israel, and due to his key role in the “Gifts Affair” case, the court permitted Milchan to testify via video call from the Israeli embassy in London.
Lawyers from both the prosecution and defense will be present in London, but the court said that the format could change if technical issues would arise.
Sara Netanyahu is expected to be present at Milchan’s testimony, after the court on May 23 approved the Netanyahu team’s request to allow the “presence of the accused and a first-degree relative.”
According to the testimony of former Netanyahu chief of staff-turned state witness Ari Harow, Milchan had plied the Netanyahu family with cigars and champagne in return for aid in securing a US visa. The prime minister allegedly spoke to then-US secretary of state John Kerry about the matter. Lapid said on Monday that he didn’t see Netanyahu having any such gifts.
The defense shared pictures of Lapid drinking alcohol and smoking with Milchan, and drew a parallel between Milchan’s behavior with Lapid and the gifts he allegedly gave to Netanyahu as part of his conduct with friends. Lapid agreed with Haddad that there were no expectations for the future created during their time together, but said that this was before he entered politics, and that he didn’t make a habit of accepting gifts – if he wanted things he bought them himself.