Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s testimony in his criminal trial was cut short again on Monday, after the Tel Aviv District Court accepted his request to end the hearing early due to “security-diplomatic” constraints.
The hearing, held before judges Rivka Friedman-Feldman, Moshe Bar-Am, and Oded Shaham, began at its regular time and was scheduled to run until 4:30 p.m. Shortly after it began, Netanyahu’s attorneys met with the judges in their chambers, after which Friedman-Feldman announced that the hearing would end at 1:45 p.m.
The shortened hearing came after two of last week’s three scheduled hearings were canceled at Netanyahu’s request, also due to security and diplomatic needs presented confidentially to the judges.
At the opening of Monday’s hearing, the judges asked prosecutor Yonatan Tadmor how much time remained in Netanyahu’s cross-examination, which is in its final stretch. Tadmor said the prosecution needed another four to five full days of hearings.
Monday’s hearing returned to the heart of Case 2000: the Israel Hayom bill, a private member’s bill promoted in 2014 that sought to restrict the free distribution of the newspaper, which was Yediot Aharonot’s main competitor.
Netanyahu charged with fraud, breach of trust
The prosecution alleges that Netanyahu’s efforts to block or soften the bill were part of a broader channel of coordination with Yediot Aharonot publisher Arnon “Noni” Mozes, in which Mozes would receive movement on legislation that benefited his company, while Netanyahu would receive more favorable coverage.
Netanyahu rejected the claim, saying there was “no coordination with Mozes, not at all,” and accusing the prosecution of presenting “a parallel universe.”
Netanyahu said he viewed the Israel Hayom bill as a serious threat and fought it, but gradually realized he had lost control of his coalition.
“I saw it as a terrible thing, a serious threat,” Netanyahu said. “I was standing opposite a political rival who had taken over the coalition. There is no government.”
According to Netanyahu, the decision to allow coalition members a free vote on the bill was not part of any arrangement with Mozes, but a political escape route suggested by then-coalition chairman Ze’ev Elkin after it became clear the government could not impose discipline.
“It hurt me very much. I did not want to do it,” Netanyahu said. “In practice, it was an admission that I had lost control of the coalition.”
Tadmor argued that this was precisely the prosecution’s point: that Netanyahu allowed the bill to remain alive and coordinated moves around it to maintain relations with Mozes.
“What was important was to continue being coordinated with Mozes and pass the bill in preliminary reading,” Tadmor said, arguing that this would allow Mozes to receive part of what he wanted regarding Israel Hayom’s distribution, while Netanyahu would receive positive coverage.
Netanyahu responded that he fought the bill, and said prosecutors did not bring Elkin to testify because his account would contradict their “false thesis.”
The prosecution also questioned Netanyahu about contacts between former chief of staff Ari Harow and Mozes around the time of the bill. Harow, who became a state’s witness, testified that he contacted Mozes at Netanyahu’s request on the eve of the preliminary vote. Netanyahu denied asking Harow to pass any legislative message.
“I have no idea if he spoke to him. Maybe he spoke to him about a purchase,” Netanyahu said, referring to efforts to interest potential buyers in Yediot Aharonot. “But I did not ask him to pass a message.”
Netanyahu argued that Harow’s contacts with Mozes over a possible sale of Yediot proved that there was no deal between him and Mozes.
“If I had a deal with Mozes, why would I need to make an effort?” Netanyahu said. “I made one last effort to purchase the newspaper, to get out of the mess.”
Netanyahu was also asked about his decision in December 2014 to fire then-ministers Tzipi Livni and Yair Lapid, a move that led to the dissolution of the Knesset and new elections. He insisted that the Israel Hayom bill was central to his decision because it reflected a broader loss of coalition control.
Tadmor suggested that this explanation was a trial-driven version of events and noted that the bill was already stuck in the Knesset Committee at the time.
“I am sure you are a talented lawyer, but you will not replace me in political tactics,” Netanyahu replied. “The bill was the basis of the loss of control. It was the basis of the revolt.”
Both Netanyahu and Mozes deny the allegations
Case 2000 centers on recorded conversations between Netanyahu and Mozes. Netanyahu is charged with fraud and breach of trust, while Mozes is charged with offering and promising a bribe.
According to the indictment, prosecutors allege that, despite years of hostility, Netanyahu and Mozes discussed mutual interests: improved coverage of Netanyahu and his family in Yediot Aharonot outlets, and restrictions on Israel Hayom that would carry major financial significance for Mozes.
The core of the case is a recorded December 2014 conversation, ahead of the 20th Knesset election, in which prosecutors allege Mozes offered Netanyahu a bribe by proposing a significant change in Yediot’s coverage in exchange for Netanyahu using his governmental power to advance legislation against Israel Hayom.
Prosecutors say Netanyahu did not refuse the offer or end the conversation. Instead, they say that the premier continued a detailed discussion with Mozes and created the impression that he might use his power as prime minister to promote legislation benefiting Mozes, even if he did not intend to ultimately advance the bill.
Both Netanyahu and Mozes deny the allegations.