The State of Israel vs. Benjamin Netanyahu: PM finally takes the witness stand
Premier to testify in his graft trial in Tel Aviv 3 times a week, 6 hours a day until end of December; his defense attorneys will question him first, followed by cross-examination
Jeremy Sharon is The Times of Israel’s legal affairs and settlements reporter
The criminal trial in the case of The State of Israel versus Benjamin Netanyahu will take a critical turn this week as the defendant, the prime minister of Israel, takes the witness stand to answer questions put to him, first by his defense lawyers and then by the prosecution.
Israel, already in the uncharted territory of having a serving prime minister on trial, will plow even further into terra incognita with the premier required to testify in court for six hours a day, two or three days a week.
So, how will Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s testimony unfold?
His trial is set to begin on Tuesday at 10 a.m. and to continue on Wednesday afternoon.
Even though the prime minister is being tried in the Jerusalem District Court, he will give his testimony in an underground hall in the Tel Aviv District Court since the Jerusalem court lacks adequate security arrangements, including a bomb shelter.
In the following weeks, he is to give testimony every Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, with court sessions scheduled through the end of December.
The court sessions are scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. and end at 4 p.m. every day of the hearings, with a break for lunch.
Netanyahu’s defense attorneys will question the prime minister first, over the course of several days, and likely allow him to expound at length on what he perceives to be the injustices of the charges against him and the key aspects of his defense.
Once the defense concludes its questions, the lawyers for the prosecution from the State Attorney’s Office will be given the chance to cross-examine Netanyahu, which will likely last for the majority of time the prime minister is at the witness stand.
The prime minister’s defense attorneys will then be able to call Netanyahu back to the stand to clarify aspects of his testimony under cross-examination should they so wish.
The court has said that should pressing matters requiring the prime minister’s attention arise, it will consider whether or not to call a recess to allow him to address the concern at hand.
Amid an ongoing war and with the Middle East in chaos, it would be reasonable to expect a not-insignificant number of interruptions to the court proceedings during Netanyahu’s testimony.
The court has already agreed to begin Wednesday’s hearing at 2:30 p.m. to allow Netanyahu to be present in the Knesset for the visit of Paraguay President Santiago Peña.
Netanyahu is on trial in three corruption cases. He faces charges of fraud and breach of trust in Case 1000 and Case 2000, and charges of bribery, as well as fraud and breach of trust in Case 4000.
He denies wrongdoing and says the charges were fabricated in a political coup led by the police and state prosecution.
Case 1000 revolves around allegations that Netanyahu and his wife Sara received expensive gifts illicitly from Hollywood media mogul Arnon Milchan worth some NIS 700,000 and that Netanyahu violated conflict of interest laws when he provided Milchan with assistance in renewing his long-term US residency visa and sought to help him with tax issues.
In Case 2000, the prime minister is accused of fraud and breach of trust over his alleged attempt to reach a quid pro quo agreement with the publisher of the Yedioth Aharaonot newspaper Arnon (Noni) Mozes, whereby Yedioth would give the prime minister more positive media coverage in exchange for legislation weakening its key rival, the Israel Hayom free sheet.
Case 4000, also known as the Bezeq-Walla case, is the most serious the prime minister faces, in which he is accused of authorizing regulatory decisions that financially benefited Bezeq telecommunications giant shareholder Shaul Elovitch by hundreds of millions of shekels. In return, Netanyahu allegedly received favorable media coverage from the Walla news site, which Elovitch also owned.
Prof. Barak Medina of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law said he believes the court will likely only allow two or three days at most for Netanyahu’s defense attorneys to question him in court.
Once the prosecution begins its cross-examination, the state’s lawyers will likely spend much of their time on issues surrounding Case 4000, Medina said, since the court has indicated it believes the bribery charges will be difficult to prove.
The state attorneys will therefore be anxious to buttress their allegations against the prime minister, including highlighting apparent discrepancies between Netanyahu’s narrative of events and his answers to the police when questioned under caution.
But Medina also expressed surprise at the lengths to which Netanyahu has gone to push off testifying in court.
The prime minister recently filed a request for a two-and-a-half-month delay to his testimony, and when that was rejected asked for a two-week delay, which was only partially granted.
Since then, the Knesset speaker, MK Amir Ohana of the Likud, filed a motion with the court saying it needed to coordinate the schedule for Netanyahu’s testimony with him.
When that motion was dismissed, senior cabinet ministers filed requests with the attorney general beseeching her to agree to a delay due to events in Syria.
“It seems like something is troubling him and that he wants to avoid testifying at all costs,” said Medina. “It’s very surprising how hard he’s working to avoid it,” he continued, suggesting that the prime minister may be worried about the public image of him testifying in court from the witness stand.
Netanyahu could still back out of testifying at the last minute, although this would damage his defense. Or he could testify in response to the questions of his defense attorneys and then refuse to be cross-examined.
Such a move would invalidate any testimony he would give under questioning by his lawyers, and would “not be a wise strategy,” Medina said.
But it could give him the opportunity to make his case to the public and influence public opinion without opening himself up to the risk of cross-examination when any possible holes in his account might be exposed.
