1 week ago
40
ARTICLE AD BOX
Netanyahu’s trial focuses on claims of media bias; the defense is challenging the indictment language.
By MICHAEL STARR DECEMBER 18, 2024 20:06 Updated: DECEMBER 18, 2024 20:11
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends a vote on the budget in the Knesset, December 16, 2024
(photo credit: FLASH90/CHAIM GOLDBERG)
The terminology and language used in the indictment became the centerpiece of contention at the fourth day of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's corruption trial testimony at the Tel Aviv District Court on Wednesday, with the defense's challenges regarding characterizing the defendant's involvement and requests to the co-defendant of a supposed media bribery scheme troubling both judges and prosecution.
Debate sparked immediately as the hearing began in the bunker courtroom when defense attorney Amit Haddad rose the issue of how some of the 315 items in the indictment were categorized as him being directly involved in an alleged request for better news coverage on Walla, others in which he was aware of intermediaries making requests, and other incidents still in which the indictment reportedly did not make it clear how the prime minister was connected.
The defense said that there were 82 items and coverage requests in which direct involvement from Netanyahu were not found, and another 59 requests in which it was not explicitly detailed how he or family were involved. The question of how awareness of requests from family and friends was enough to be considered corruption on Netanyahu's part.
The prosecution argued that for items in which Netanyahu was aware of requests by family and those that did not detail the independent involvement of intermediaries, there was a general miasma of corruption in which it was understood that when the prime minister's entourage made media requests, they were part of the understanding between Netanyahu and then Walla owner and co-defendant Shaul Elovitch. The prosecution also argued that the defense was engaged in pedantry years after the indictment had been filed.
The judges seemed unsatisfied by the general system argument, pressing the prosecution for a better explanation. They further requested from the defense a list of items in which evidence was lacking. Ultimately, the issues were set to be settled at the coming Wednesday hearing in Jerusalem, which would not see testimony of Netanyahu.
Demand vs. request
The judges also wished to settle the matter of the defense's resolve to review each of the 315 requests and coverage issues with Netanyahu, of which only around 30 had been explored with the judges and the defendant by the fourth day of testimony. The judges and defense both seemed amiable to the idea of lumping similar items together by category.
The language of the indictment was further challenged by the defense when they highlighted examples in which the indictment claimed that Netanyahu or an intermediary "demanded" coverage or change in coverage, yet review of the correspondence used softer language asking to "please" write a story or requested "help to include" a story.
“There is a difference between a demand and a request,” said Netanyahu.
The defense attempted to dispute the awareness and involvement of Netanyahu with coverage requests made by intermediaries, expanding on arguments made on Monday. Netanyahu and Elovitch's mutual friend Zeev Rubinstein, according to the prosecution the middleman in the media bribery scheme, could have made coverage requests from a variety of sources, Netanyahu argued. The prime minister said that his wife Sara Netanyahu could have appealed to Rubinstein of her own accord, with him noting that his busy lifestyle precluded him from being aware of every action performed by her. The prime minister's wife also maintained a mailing list, which he said that Rubinstein was on -- and he wasn't. Rubinstein could have made the decision himself to ask Elovitch for help, as according to Netanyahu he was a well-meaning person who sometimes invoked Netanyahu's name and spoke in the plural as if he represented the prime minister. There were a plethora of other actors that could have motivated Rubinstein to appeal to Elovitch or Walla CEO Ilan Yeshua.
In one item of correspondence, the defense noted that it was Yeshua that appealed to Rubinstein for help to bring Netanyahu to an event, explaining that this showed it was not a one-sided deal. The defense also noted times when Rubinstein's requests were not implemented.
Stay updated with the latest news!
Subscribe to The Jerusalem Post Newsletter
Another established argument further developed on Wednesday was the idea that Netanyahu simply didn't have the time to manage intermediaries and keep an eye on the news outlet. Walla was "not his home page" -- he didn't have time to obsessively read a website he described repeatedly in English as "fake news."
“Not only is it not important, it’s toxic,” Netanyahu said of Walla.
Giving the example of an article relating to a visit to Poland, Netanyahu explained that he didn't have time to contact an intermediary between the flight, ride to a hotel, and a "marathon" of meetings when he didn't have the devices to even correspond.
"It can't enter the schedule, there's no time for this," said Netanyahu. Later he said "I don't have telepathy" to speak to Rubinstein.
The prime minister also revisited the point that he didn't need an intermediary if he needed to speak to Elovitch, as he could have contacted him directly. Netanyahu claimed that when he did speak to Elovitch, it was in an attempt to convince him to ensure Walla engaged in better journalism, but not for his own benefit.
“I didn’t talk to him to get a better article for myself,” said Netanyahu, animated about an article he said downplayed the Iranian Islamic regime threat.
He argued that Walla had a responsibility as a news website to properly represent threats to Israel's survival, telling the judges how basic it was for a democratic “organism” to be able to “identify threats to itself.”
Haddad and Netanyahu reviewed article after article from Walla dated to the 2013 election period, when Netanyahu was supposed to have made a deal with Elovitch for better coverage in exchange for policies to help the mogul's Bezeq telecommunications company. Many of the articles were argued by the defense to be overtly hostile in nature.
A retrospective article on Netanyahu’s “bomb speech” described how the red line against Iran had disappeared, which he said did a disservice to him. Another article said that a “day in the life of the prime minister” video was propaganda.
“It doesn’t serve me, and it doesn’t serve what’s important to me,” Netanyahu said of one of Walla's 2013 articles.
The defense compared Walla's coverage of the same story to others, attempting to show the outlet was at times more hostile than others, in an attempt to discredit the idea of a special relationship between the website and defendant. Netanyahu ranked Globes as accurate, Haaretz in the middle, and Walla as hostile and toxic. Netanyahu asked how the investigators were able to determine that his relationship with Walla was beyond the norm. He asked what other politicians did, contending that they appealed to publishers multiple times a week and if it was checked what their relations with news outlets were. When positive articles about Netanyahu's camp were published, the defense argued that they were often buried low on the Walla webpage.
Netanyahu continued to receive confidential notes from aides during the testimony to the chagrin of the prosecution. As the prime minister scanned the note, Haddad remarked dryly that then was the time to take a look in case "someone wanted to tweet it.”
Haddad's comment came after the speculation surrounding Netanyahu's Monday request to cancel the Tuesday session of his testimony. The judges revealed on Wednesday morning that the hearing was canceled due to a tour of the Syrian Hermon. The security demands and poor weather factored into the court’s decision to accept Netanyahu’s request.
Netanyahu's prime ministerial duties continued to impact the trial on Wednesday as the judges accepted the defense's request to start Monday's hearing an hour earlier so they could finish an hour earlier.
English (US) ·