The other defendants in Netanyahu's trial could determine his fate
Who are Netanyahu's co-defendants, and how could they affect the outcome of the trial for the prime minister?
By YONAH JEREMY BOBSHAUL ELOVITCH appears in Jerusalem District Court Sunday at the start of their trial.(photo credit: MARC ISRAEL SELLEM/THE JERUSALEM POST)
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is unquestionably Defendant No. 1 in every sense of the term in the trial of Cases 1000, 2000 and 4000 which started on Sunday.But in any normal case, the other defendants in those cases would also be considered extraordinary and prominent.They include Bezeq and Walla owner Shaul Elovitch and his wife, Iris, and Yediot Aharonot publisher Arnon “Noni” Mozes. Bezeq has been a giant in Israel’s telecom sector, and Walla has been one of the top news sites online. Yediot was by far the dominant print newspaper in Israel’s market for years, and even today is ranked second, with a hold on a significant portion of the market. Both Mozes and Elovitch have been feared and courted by the political class.Moreover, to understand Netanyahu’s chances, it is also crucial to understand the status of these other defendants and how their cases could decide the prime minister’s fate.In Case 4000, Shaul Elovitch is accused of hatching a scheme with Netanyahu in which the prime minister influenced communications policy to make Elovitch NIS 1.8 billion in exchange for both Shaul and Iris ensuring positive coverage for him on Walla’s news site.In Case 2000, Mozes is accused of attempting a scheme with Netanyahu in which the prime minister would convince Israel Hayom owner and ally Sheldon Adelson to limit his competition with Yediot in exchange for Mozes guaranteeing positive coverage for Netanyahu.Until July 2018, the Elovitch family narrative, when questioned by police, was that they denied allegations by Walla chief editor Ilan Yeshua that Shaul had ordered him to swing coverage in favor of Netanyahu.Yeshua had given meticulous detail about Shaul intervening about specific wording in specific headlines in favor of the prime minister, both to give positive coverage and to minimize the impact of any negative stories. Iris is more of the minor lieutenant in this story, but she also passed on similar instructions which were often sent to her by Sara Netanyahu.Sara was also questioned as a suspect, but Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit ultimately decided there was less evidence to prove her criminal intent than her husband’s.Then there was a later round of questioning. In the aftermath of Benjamin Netanyahu and Shaul Elovitch being confronted with allegations not only by Yeshua but also by former Netanyahu top adviser Nir Hefetz, it was leaked that Elovitch shifted his story.
In this later round of questioning, after being confronted with incriminating texts he sent to Yeshua and Hefetz, he could no longer deny what he did.Instead, he said that he just did this out of fear from retribution from the prime minister and his wife – not for a bribe relating to Netanyahu ordering favorable government policies for Bezeq.This was not great for Elovitch, as he will have to explain at trial why he changed his story (or, put differently, lied in his initial blanket denials).Also, his story now more closely resembles the allegations against him, making it easier to prove he was bribed, even if he still denies the criminal intent part of the allegations.Why does this matter to Netanyahu?Rewinding to the Holyland trial against former prime minister Ehud Olmert, he lost far more badly, quicker and across the board than in the Talansky Affair, in which he was initially acquitted. A key reason was that in the Holyland Affair his narrative and denial were wrapped up with a group of other defendants.How could the court accept that the main parties giving bribes were telling the truth – that they bribed around a dozen public officials – but that it just so happened that they were lying only about saying they also bribed Olmert?If the court accepted the state’s witness allegations that there was a bribery scheme, Olmert was done for.The same could be true here.If the Jerusalem District Court concludes that Elovitch tilted coverage of Walla in favor of Netanyahu, it is more likely also to conclude that there was a bribery scheme to repay Elovitch with favorable treatment for Bezeq.There is one more piece to this puzzle of Case 4000 defendants. There is actually a parallel and separate Case 4000 spin-off expected to be tried in Tel Aviv against former Bezeq CEO Stella Handler and another half-dozen Bezeq and related employees (and Shaul’s son, Or Elovitch) for their involvement in the alleged Elovitch-Netanyahu and related schemes.Although formally separate, Handler and others will guest star in the Netanyahu trial and are part of the bribery scheme picture.If the judges tie Elovitch and another half-dozen or so Bezeq, Communications Ministry and other officials into the scheme, based on allegations by Yeshua and former top Netanyahu aides turned state witnesses Nir Hefetz and Shlomo Filber, they will find it difficult to accept that only the prime minister was not involved.The same is true with Mozes.On December 4, 2014, Netanyahu met with Mozes, who offered Netanyahu positive media coverage and to attack Netanyahu rivals Naftali Bennett and Moshe Kahlon with “all of my efforts.”Netanyahu responded by describing to Mozes how he would pass a law that would weaken Israel Hayom and empower Mozes.There is no “alleged” here – it is all on tape!The main reason this Case 2000 against Netanyahu is considered the weakest is that, unlike in Case 4000, the scheme never went through, and since it didn’t, both Netanyahu and Mozes claim they were just conning the other in a long and complex rivalry to try to get favorable treatment based on the fake possibility of a deal.Mandelblit said that December 4, 2014, was the moment when Netanyahu broke the law. Also, after the fifth of six meetings with Mozes, Netanyahu met with Adelson and asked for his help to carry out what he had promised to Mozes.Yet, it seems that because there was no state’s witness to point the finger at Netanyahu and say he had criminal intent, Mandelblit felt a bribery charge would fail to prove that intent in the face of Netanyahu’s alibi.Unlike Hefetz and Filber in Case 4000, the state’s witness in this case, former aide Ari Harow, did not claim Netanyahu had criminal intent. Rather, he provided only details about the Netanyahu-Mozes meeting.In fact, without Mozes, Mandelblit would probably have closed Case 2000 entirely.But Mandelblit could not let Mozes off. There were too many damning witnesses portraying Mozes’s alleged criminal intent, including former Yediot chief editor Ron Yaron and former Labor MK Eitan Cabel.Mandelblit was forced to indict Netanyahu for breach of trust – for failing to discourage Mozes from the scheme and appearing to openly encourage it and act to make it happen – because Mozes was in the case.This does not ensure a conviction at trial. Netanyahu can still argue that Elovitch’s motivation for giving him positive coverage was just plain fear, not part of a scheme, and that the prime minister discussed only news coverage on an objective basis, as he did with other owners.He can point out that Mandelblit himself, by indicting Mozes for the more serious bribery charge, has acknowledged that there is more evidence against Mozes than against him.But if the court is convinced that Elovitch and Mozes are guilty, it certainly makes Netanyahu’s defense harder in a case that, with multiple top former lieutenants pointing the finger at him, was already an uphill battle.
