Communication between journalists and politicians is the norm, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu argued at his Tuesday corruption trial testimony, contending that the prosecution was trying to criminalize routine communications and present his as exceptional to support their media bribery scheme theory.
In a testimony that centered on Case 4000, in which Netanyahu stands accused of furthering policies and approvals to benefit then-Walla owner Shaul Elovitch in exchange for positive coverage, the prime minister argued that contact between his retinue and Walla was nothing exceptional.
“What is exceptional here?” Netanyahu asked.
Politicians and their spokespersons are in contact with journalists frequently. Responding to a chain of text messages about a Walla article’s removal included in the indictment, Netanyahu said he could list famous Israeli journalists whom he and his office are in contact with regularly, but for which there were no investigations. Just because there was a request to rectify news coverage, it doesn’t mean there is an “understanding or agreement,” Netanyahu argued.
Netanyahu contended that in their quest to find wrongdoing, the prosecution was criminalizing communication between politicians and journalists, something that would damage the state’s democracy. If such communication was deemed to be criminal, the prosecution should apply such a standard to themselves for their own spokesperson’s communications with journalists, Netanyahu said.
Fake news
Other politicians regularly made requests to correct, update, and even remove content on new websites, such as one request by the prime minister’s wife, Sara Netanyahu, and Zeev Rubinstein, who is alleged by the prosecution of being the middleman between Netanyahu and Elovitch. The prime minister’s wife and their friend had appealed to Walla to remove an article because the report was incorrect, defense attorney Amit Haddad explained.
“Did you know that it was fake news when you wrote the indictment?” Haddad asked the prosecution.
Netanyahu said his wife engaged with the issue on her own initiative, he had no knowledge of the incident, and when Rubinstein contacted ex-Walla CEO Ilan Yeshua, saying that “they” [the Netanyahus family] were stressed by the article, it was another instance of Rubinstein taking liberties with acting in the prime minister’s name.
The call logs between Netanyahu and co-defendant Elovitch similarly fell in the normal routine of political-media communications, the defense often claimed, with Netanyahu recalling that he had contacted Elovitch to complain about the general quality of journalism on his website, which included coverage of him.
Netanyahu noted that he had contacted Elovitch directly, without Rubinstein’s help, because it “doesn’t make sense” to use an intermediary for something he could do himself.
Many of the calls between Netanyahu and Elovitch included in the corruption indictment were between secretaries organizing a meeting, the prime minister said. He also argued that because many of the calls were so short, it was unlikely anything untoward could have occurred.
The defense throughout the day highlighted Walla’s coverage of Netanyahu to explain the necessity of coverage change requests and why the outlet’s coverage of him was not exceptionally positive coverage, but was, according to the prime minister, “exceptionally hostile.”
Haddad compared Walla’s coverage to that of comparable articles in other outlets to dispute the idea of Netanyahu being bribed with positive coverage in 2013. One article by Ynet’s former lifestyle branch, Xnet, explored the “new look of Sara Netanyahu.” Haddad led Netanyahu through a line of questioning to highlight that despite the positive coverage, the prime minister was not in cahoots with Ynet’s owners and did not work to have the article published.
Haddad said that a day after the Xnet article was published, a Walla article about the style of different world leaders, including Netanyahu’s wife, was issued. This article was included in the indictment, but Netanyahu said that despite there being more photos of his wife in the Xnet article, that outlet wasn’t being investigated.
Netanyahu said it was ridiculous that an indictment was based on an Israeli leader supposedly being involved with the media, based on a photograph of his wife in an article.
In another instance of ostensibly disfavorable coverage, Netanyahu criticized Walla’s proliferation of a famous photograph taken by The Jerusalem Post’s Marc Israel Sellem. The photograph, which captured the moment that Netanyahu pointed past then-German chancellor Angela Merkel, casting a shadow on her upper lip that resembled the mustache of deceased Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, caused diplomatic tremors.
“It didn’t support me, [and] it didn’t support her,” said Netanyahu.
The virality of the photograph put the government in a “bad situation,” and the German diplomatic mission was displeased by the incident, Netanyahu recalled.
The repetition of Netanyahu commenting on Walla article after Walla article presaged the Wednesday procedural hearing, which Netanyahu will not attend. With 315 items in the indictment appendix, many of the articles, messages, and calls presented by the defense saw the prime minister repeating himself throughout the hearing.
On Wednesday, the judges and legal teams are set to decide if they would group certain items together by subject matter for the prime minister to testify on or provide another solution, with the judges and prosecution noting that the defense and defendant repeated and rehashed arguments made during previous hearings.
With so many examples of supposedly negative news articles from Walla, Haddad and Netanyahu argued it undermined the prosecution’s claim that he, in return, would sign regulatory business approvals to the benefit of Elovitch
Netanyahu said he signed regulatory documents regardless of what people wrote about him.
“I hope you honorable judges will recognize my record as both a prime minister and finance minister and see how absurd this is,” said Netanyahu.
The Tuesday hearing opened with an argument by Haddad that the singing of regulatory approvals by Netanyahu was another element of government that was, in the words of his client, “simply completely routine.”
Business approvals signed by Netanyahu years before a supposed media bribery scheme with Elovitch were far more financially substantial than those signed after the alleged understanding, the defense argued, and were approved in the same routine manner.
As with the approvals for 2014 B Communications and the Yad 2 sale, which the prosecution alleged were expedited at the behest of former Walla officers, Netanyahu said he didn’t remember signing 2010 business approvals and didn’t feel he owed anything to Elovitch then either.
Haddad and Netanyahu continued to emphasize that these 2010 documents were approved before he and Elovitch became closer acquaintances in 2012 and prior to the alleged scheme to exchange positive coverage on Walla for government favor.